Questioning 119:  What's this Geometric Tabernacle Shape Dispute all About?

A little over 10 years ago, Project 314 was founded following an inadvertent discovery of the PI constant in the Exodus Tabernacle texts.  Not long after, through exacting engineering analysis and careful and literal Biblical Hebrew exegesis, it was discovered how the Hebrew Tabernacle built by Egyptian slaves was not a small rectangular awkward shack standing humbly in the desert, but rather a massive yurt-like dome structure towering six stories over the desert floor.  It was a far cry from the rectangular "shoebox model has been taught for centuries, if not for thousands of years, as depicted in traditional yet peculiar religious artwork and debated by confounded commentators. 

Eventually, I came to publish the results of my Hebrew exegesis research and engineering calculations in the book, The House of El Shaddai—God’s Dwelling Place Reconsidered.  In addition, with the help of a handful of dedicated folks, we’ve managed to develop real life scale Tabernacle models that unequivocally demonstrated proof-of-concept, including a retail DIY 1:75 kit and a 1:8 scale model that was first exhibited back in Illinois in the spring of 2021.  At present, a larger 1:6 scale outdoor model build is underway.  But because the inherent complexity, unorthodox nature of the Tabernacle discovery, and public appeal, success in the social media space has taken place at a much more metered pace.   

 

On Saturday the 15th of February, I got an email from Noel with invitation to come back on his YouTube channel for an interview, where Noel mentioned a recent 119 ministries critique video, which aired on Friday the 14th.  The 119 ministires crew entitled it, “Was God’s Tabernacle a Circle’.  While Noel offered some measure of warning, I was highly suspicious and equally amused by the title.  After watching the video, it was clear that I was getting dragged into the court of public opinion—but without the courtesy of inquiry—much less the benefit of two or three witnesses. The 119 Ministries crew went so far as to advertise the prejudicial video on their home page, even featuring my own artistic content against me.

In contrast to Project 314, 119 ministries group has clearly mastered the art of social medial marketing over the last 15 years.  Having produced enough content to begin their own 24/7 streaming channel, 119 has become a religious media giant, climbing up to 186k subscribers on their YouTube channel alone.  In contrast, Project 314 has all but 2.5k subscribers.  What’s more is that 119 Ministries has a 11 part series done on the Tabernacle, naturally assuming a rectangular interpretation paradigm, which they did back over the course of 2023-2024— which I had been completely oblivious to, since I lost interest in 119’s content perhaps close to ten years ago following the shutdown of open forum commenting on a controversial video topic that they had released.  I thoroughly believed then—as well as now—that those who assume a role of teaching in the public square must stand accountable for public proclamations—especially in matters of faith and authoritative Scripture. 

There's no question about it, 119 ministries is a well-oiled machine producing lots of popular content that appears most professional and polished with a high production quality.  But bigger isn't always better; and reach and power isn't always about size. Granted, 119 Ministries is 74x bigger than Project 314.  But Project 314 aims do to things differently, and opts to not only fight different battles, but to do battle in more calculated ways.  Rather than saturate the world with a wide spectrum of subject matter, Project 314 is highly specialized has focused primarily on one particular niche; namely, the Exodus Tabernacle.  So where the 119 ministries group has come to expand its sphere of influence by diversification of subject matter and to address everything from soup to nuts to the kitchen sink, Project 314 aspires to prioritize quantity over quality. 

 

In the world of cat videos, baby bloopers, and culture jamming, when it comes to social media, content is king.  With shorts dominating increasing portions of the market share, the tendency to try to be immersed in the stream of superficial dopamine-hit content streaming is tempting.  However, there is also a departure were some people are going back all the more to more long form content, being increasingly disinterested in—and perhaps exhausted by—the deluge of surface level or superficial fluff.  And so it is, or at least can be, with religion.  Some seek to splash in puddles whereas others want to navigate oceans. 

Questioning 119:  Knowledge and Triumph through Criticism

God works in mysterious ways.  While there is no telling at which point a gospel track or hard-hitting social media meme might change the course of someone’s life, there is a time and purpose for everything.  After all, if bumper sticker theology was sufficient, there would be little reason to learn to read above an 8th grade level, or to read Bibles or explore other languages to glean a deeper understanding lest the instant gratification be neither instant nor gratifying enough.  So while some are called in life to make great bumper stickers, others are called in life to amass libraries.  But when people want to read a novel, they usually don’t pull off at the nearest mega-truck stop to raid the rack of bumper stickers.  Alas, the generation too impatient for microwave popcorn has matured, some wanting the popcorn even faster and popped for them, with others realizing that popcorn isn’t exactly a nourishing meal meant to indefinitely sustain them.  But I digress.

 

Over the course of the last decade, I have seen a wide spectrum of responses to Project 314 content and the round Tabernacle research and exegesis.  But never before had I seen anything quite like 119’s video critique thereof.  While my overall style may well be too verbose and detailed for many to deal with, to the point where people are either bored or intimidated by the content, seldom do I get many “takers” with respect to formal criticism.  As indicated above, I believe public criticism is an essential in the realm of public teaching and ministry, not only necessary but obligatory; however, this does not automatically qualify all criticism as legitimate or of value.  And such is the case with 119’s recent “Was the Tabernacle a Circle” video.  After all, for criticism to of merit, it must be not only true and objective; perhaps most importantly, it must be accurate and representative of the subject material.

The Proverbs speak of criticism in a strange way.  While it might sound obvious that, “he who hates correction is stupid”, a more curious proverb is that “he who loves correction loves knowledge”.  As I reflect back over the course of ten years of advocating the round Exodus Tabernacle, I think I must come to conclude that some of the most interesting mental breakthroughs that I have received have been often on the heels of the worst correction.  When I say “worst correction”, this is not to say when I was 95% off target, but rather when I was 95% on but I didn’t fully come to understand the depths of the 5% that I was missing until forced to produce.  For in testing criticisms, we hone our critical thinking skills to a razor sharp point, piercing profound depths unfathomable. 

Although I cannot say that 119’s recent criticisms stretched me that far academically, I can say that their criticism has come to mark a major milestone for Project 314.  And instead of being discouraged by the miserable hit-piece that they did against the dome Tabernacle—and frankly every one of its proponents, I can say that it left me grinning ear to ear.  Why?  Because I believe the 119 criticism to be indicative of the growth of an informed Project 314 support base.  Growth to a point where my opponents can no longer control ignore the inevitable.   Growth to a point where they are forced to stop ignoring you and start fighting you.

Questioning 119:  Gaining Ground in the Court of Public Opinion?

Not long after Noel told me about the 119 video, I started surveying the 119 video comments and engaging in social media exchanges.  And saw that many people following THEIR channel actually had MY back.  While some of their fan base was all too happy to consent to what 119 proclaimed without critical thinking, validation, or independent test, it was clear that those participating in the comment forum were outnumbering those holding 119’s remarks in high regard by a 2:1 ratio.  Of the most popular comments in the feed, the ones receiving the most likes were all those in favor of the dome Tabernacle.  Only one in 20 of the most liked comments held views that were favorable to 119’s position.  Here they had created a video and shared it with their loyal subscriber base—call it home field advantage—and they were losing, and losing badly.   

From reading the public comments, it was clear that my sentiments pertaining to 119’s criticisms were justified, as they said that I was not only denied the courtesy of inquiry, but they were essentially waging war against me in the court of public opinion. And they were doing it by gross misrepresentation.  Despite the anonymous 119 team member(s) paying no evident regard to the multiple witnesses in their public forum that were openly rebuking 119 for slighting and misrepresentation, I figured it best to reach out anyway.  Thinking that I should have the right to face my accuser, so I could counter many of the claims in a public forum, I encouraged Noel to reach out to 119 to invite them to participate in debate, which they promptly declined.  Finally, I also made a point to offer what I thought to be fair warning to 119, asking them if they'd reconsider taking an alternate path, expressing concerns about the negative impact upon them.  Although they may have not perceived good will my asking 119 to reconsider, my decision to reach out and seek an alternative path was also rooted in Dt 20:10.  After all, in all the time that they’ve been producing short and simple highly polished and highly simplified videos, I have been scrutinizing every splinter, every thread, every part, and every angle of the Tabernacle.  As Noel put it in our interview, I saw it as someone bringing a knife to a gunfight. 

Zig Ziglar is quoted as saying something like "when you throw mud at people, you not only get dirty hands, but you'll also lose ground."  So with the handfuls of mud I’ve received, I hope to build upon this opportunity.  After all, they say that “even bad publicity is good publicity”.  And in the case of bad and unfair criticism, bad publicity is really extra great publicity.   

Even though we are not doing battle with the likes of siege ramps and spears--or blades and bullets--we nevertheless find ourselves in a battle of sorts, that is, a battle for ideas.   As mentioned above, given witness that have testified in 119’s comment fields, I think that I have a case of bearing false witness against me here given 119's video, and it would seem based upon the circumstances that we are left to battle it out in the court of public opinion.  So I bring my case before you all today.

So, in light of the 119 team declining our invitation to live debate, and in light of 119 not accurately representing me, Project 314 content, or fellow round Tabernacle advocates fairly, I figured that the next best thing to do was prepare a response and list of questions directed toward the 119 crew to ask as if they were here and in direct response to what they are saying in their video.  Hoping to make Luther blush for posting a mere 95 theses, it was my intent to present 119 questions to 119 ministries, that is, one question short of 119 ministries in a video interview response to 119 ministries. 

Unfortunately, I had insufficient time to prepare and rehearse a presentation that would be as polished and have the production quality as high as was that of the 119 team, but coming from behind, I felt that time was of the essence and the community at large and Project 314 would be better served from an imperfect production with pertinent information more so that perfect production.  Fortunately, because content is always king, it’s not always how something is said that matters in comparison to what is said.  As it is said, when you know the “why” you’ll endure almost any “how”. 

So I’m ready to take a few lumps from the bits of fumbling and verbal stumbling that I do in the response video—because in the end, all of the cuts and retakes and stitching and posturing and pandering and pretense in the world won’t change the simple truth that the 119 team doesn't t remotely understand what they are talking about in terms of Tabernacle study, are not being academically honest in either their arguments or in their conclusions.  They claim that they like to test everything, but in the end, I suspect they will be exposed for failing to test almost anything.

So that’s the back story behind the video and the underlying contest.  Regrettably, my dream of asking the 119 ministry team 119 questions via video venue was thwarted by my own failure to execute these questions according to my own intended schedule and script, but this is not to say that the questions are no longer relevant, or for that matter, capable of being posted in a much more manageable format.  To that end, I am documenting them here on my home page until they are answered to my satisfaction or until I see fit to remove them. 

I have also posted the original 119 video above for audience consideration.  There are two camps and two worldviews hanging in the balance here.  I have made myself available and have made my content available for public consideration and critique.  As an engineer acting in good conscience that has been blessed to bear this revelation, I cannot remain silent while people dogmatically insist that God’s plans for his own dwelling place were idiotic as religious tradition would have it.

---------------------------------------------------

 

So here are the questions that were developed in response to watching 119's "Was the Tabernacle a Circle" video, which are mostly presented in the order which they appear in the 119 original.  Note that most of the images are extracted direct from the Andrew Hoy / Noel Hadley interview and rebuttal video entitled "Was God's Tabernacle a Rectangle?", which likewise extracted slides (most of which are shown with time stamps) derived from 119 ministries' original "Was God's Tabernacle a Circle?" video. Timestamps are included next to question numbers where the question is posed in direct response to 119 ministries' remarks made in the original "Was God's Tabernacle a Circle?" video.

 

Question 1 -- Why did 119 dismiss virtually every public rebuke on their YouTube channel with respect to misrepresentation of ANDREW HOY and PROJECT 314? 

Below is a screenshot highlighting a brief sample.

 

Question 2 -- Why didn't 119 ministries want to work towards a more peaceable and lower profile contest before going public and making things personal? 

Below is a screenshot documenting an appeal to peace and reason and expressed concern for 119 ministries' well being.

 

Question 3 -- Why did 119 ministries decide to undermine Project 314 / Andrew Hoy's Tabernacle research and content in the court of public opinion?

Considering that the 119 ministries YouTube channel has 74 times the number of subscribers, the motive behind this decision isn't readily apparent.

Question 4 (@0:15) -- Does the 119 ministries team member in the "Was God's Tabernacle a Circle" video list Andrew Hoy by name seven times, but never once introduce himself, while mentioning 119 ministries by name six times and mentioning of Project 314 zero times?

There is no honor in a teacher making claims or attacks from the blanket cover of an organization or from the vantage point of anonymity.  It would seem that this was being done by means of organization pretense to create a perception of authority through artificially manufactured consensus while making it appear as if Andrew Hoy is a lone disorganized outlier (someone might go so far as to say "dissident") just misleading stray sheep away from the safety of orthodoxy.

 

Question 5 (@0:26) -- If a link to the 119 ministries website is testeverything.net, and this is 119's motto, why was Andrew Hoy excluded from said testing? 

It stands to reason that having direct personal exchange would result in the best understanding.  As stated above, personal contact information has been made available by means of website and social media and published since the launch of the Project 314 website, i.e., project314.org.

 

Question 6 (@0:26) -- Why does 119 ministries believe that they have done due diligence in this Tabernacle research, despite members of the public stating concerns? 

After viewing all of 119 ministries' Tabernacle teaching series in its entirety, it fails to answers questions with respect to how the Tabernacle was built altogether.  Exegetical, technical, and Hebrew detail is left to a minimum, if ever addressed at all. 

 

Question 7 (@0:45) -- How is 119 ministries able to manipulate Project 314's 3d dome Tabernacle images so easily, adding the cool background? 

Seriously, credit must be given where credit is due to 119's A/V crew and with the professional manipulation of A/V content.

 

Question 8 (@0:45) -- Did 119 ministries deliberately add smoke and distort the Project 314 CGI courtyard image of the courtyard, and if so, why not focus instead of exegetical content instead of image manipulation?

It would seem that 74x the effort that went in produce 119's "Was the Tabernacle a Circle" video from an A/V production quality standpoint in comparison to scripting, story boarding, and, most importantly, technical content review.

 

Question 9 (@0:45) -- Why does 119 ministries fail to cite sources and reference or copyright information, especially for the CGI content? 

Given the fact that the content is used in a defamatory capacity, it would seem that most of the content goes far beyond the limitations of what is consider "fair use" under U.S. law; nevertheless, from an academic standpoint, it is at the very least short of courteous and professional. 

 

Question 10 (@0:45) -- How is it that 119 ministries producers or editors don't know what a circle is relative to 2D and 3D objections and shapes and constructions, or at least fail to use the term accurately?

To say that a 3D structure is a circle is absurd.  Spheres, cones, cylinders, and domes are examples of 3D shapes that are CIRCULAR, but none of those things are considered to be a CIRCLE.

 

Question 11 (@1:02) -- Why doesn't 119 ministries mention that the Hebrew Exodus term for worship around the Tabernacle and "holy day" are rooted in חג, which conveys the idea of circle and circular?

Images are included below so readers can look up the references and ponder the historical ramifications and the cultural re/mis appropriation as the Hebrew slaves would make a round חוג wilderness Tabernacle for circular procession feasts that would be referred to in the singular as חג. 

 

 

 

Question 12 (@1:04) -- Does 119 ministries know that according to Exodus 27:16, the courtyard gate is said to have four posts, and if so, can 119 ministries explain why their CGI model features five?

The image below shows the Exodus verse and how it calls for 4 curtains, not five, according to 119's demo image. 

 

Question 13 (@1:04) -- How can the public trust 119 ministries as qualified Hebrew teachers if there is no evidence of mastery of shapes or even count basic numbers?

There are numerous cases within 119's CGI model that do not conform to quantities as identified in Exodus. Claims made to the Tabernacle being "a rectangle" are as absurd as the "Tabernacle a Circle" title as the rectangle again is a mere 2D plane shape bound by 2 sets of 4 parallel liens.  If a Hebrew teacher cannot count to four, it stands to reason that his command over other subjects, like Bible history, ancient construction, or exegesis would be suspect. 

 

Question 14 (@1:59) -- Can 119 ministries distinguish between calling the reliability of a TRANSLATION and / or an INTERPRETATION into question, versus undermining the reliability of the Scriptures themselves?

Andrew Hoy / Project 314 has never told people to doubt the Scriptures; but people have been encouraged to doubt translators, theologians, and translations, many cases documented herein document such problematic interpretations and hermeneutics.

 

Question 15 (@2:07) -- Is it fair or representative to Andrew Hoy / Project 314 for the 119 ministries team to begin by skipping ahead to Exodus 26:18, especially as the circular or cylindrical courtyard curtain arrangement theory begins back at Exodus 26:7?

Most only vaguely familiar with Andrew Hoy / Project 314's research seen introductory curtain details outlined not only in The House of El Shaddai, on the website for free and easy access to all, such as the content shown in the diagram below.  Public critics of 119 ministries have also testified to this poor representation / misrepresentation.  Deliberately omitting key parts of a story is akin to false witness or slander, as in courts of law people vow to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.  The diagram below is systematically omitted from the "whole truth" that 119 ministries "test everything" creed by which they would purport to live. 

Question 16 (@2:07) -- Why does 119 ministries, like nearly all rectangular Tabernacle frame advocates, assume that the shape of the tent frame is more important than the shape and arrangement of the fabrics? 

The Ramban Artscroll commentary has the same problem, but it seems there is no valid reason to omit such content as being relevant to the argument. Omitting this sort of important detail seems to be is a form passive strawmanning. 

 

Question 17 (@2:07) -- Why does 119 ministries fail to consider that that words in this short Exodus 26:18-22 Tabernacle texts are translated into English generically as "side", all but 1 of which are different from courtyard language?

Slides below outline this linguistic Hebrew "sides" nuance that speak to the question above.  There is not pure evidence of rectangle here, as rectangles are in part defined as having FOUR sides.

 

Question 18 (@2:07) -- If 119 ministries' earliest Tabernacle courtyard depiction demonstrates that they cannot count to four, then why should anyone take 119 ministries seriously when 119 ministries claim they can spot a rectangle?

Before declaring that the "Tabernacle is a rectangle", it's first essential to define the criterion whereby a rectangle is accurately defined.  Rectangles are planes with four straight sides and right angle corners.  Every rectangle claim throughout the 119 ministries presentation is based on inference or presumption. 

Question 19 (@2:07) -- Why does 119 ministries make no distinctions between these different Hebrew words that don't mean "side", and when there are only two or maybe three "sides" to this would-be rectangle, with so-called "sides" going by different names?

Contrary to the 119 ministries claim, Exodus 26:18-22 does not definitively speak of a rectangle. It talks of two or three so-called "sides".

 

 

 

Question 20 (@2:07) -- Why is 119 ministries intent upon insisting that walls of the Tabernacle be linearly aligned to the four cardinal compass points, while also insisting they must be straight?

No information is given in Exodus that describes the walls as straight sides.  Actually, the opposite proves to be true (e.g., Exodus 27:17).  Compass bearings of north, south, east, and west are ultimately relative to their opposite direction.  Bearings off of due north or south are still north or south bearings or orientations.  The same could be said of "sides", especially if the sides are comprised of semicircles, as Exodus 27:9-18 describes.   

 

Question 21 (@2:48) --  How does 119 ministries know that the court is even a quadrilateral from Exodus 27:18, as a rectangle is defined by the number and arrangement of FOUR sides, when no references to sides are given in verse 18?

The obsession with the rectangle in 119 ministries' line of reasoning seems to be strange, presumptuous, misappropriated, especially as Ex 27:18 makes no mention of even quadrilateral features.

 

 

Question 22 (@2:56) -- As Hebrew experts, why does 119 ministries fail to address the fact that 13 of 14 translations omit any quantitative reference to the second "50" in Hebrew?

This omitted second 50 width measurement is unique and of relevance otherwise the original author would not have written it as he did.

 

Question 23 (@2:56) -- Why does 119 ministries go out of their way to favor translators that neglect the extra 50 detail altogether (citing ESV as Bible of choice in this video), casually neglecting the reference to the other dimension called out in the YLT?

It's not academically honest to use a non-literal translation of the Hebrew if the translation of the texts cannot be supported literally, and it's not reasonable or remotely praiseworthy for translators to omit terms or paraphrase things according to personal inference or preference.

 

Question 24 (@2:56) -- Can 119 ministries explain why original Hebrew texts only double the linear dimension reference (the width) in one of three measurement directions, and explain why the original text doesn't say אמה באמה for length and חמש בחמשה for rise if the translators were enveloping a cuboid prisim as many of 119's English cited versions would have people believe?

The Exodus 27:18a citations given by 119 ministries show that most ignore the חמשים בחמשים or 50 by 50 or perhaps 50 in 50 nuance altogether, with the more ambitious translations presenting this 50 by 50 language is enveloping nuance (i.e., using language like "50 everywhere"), but the lack of such language in the other two dimensions, i.e., length and height direction would not coincide with an enveloping purpose in translation here. 

 

Question 25 (@3:12) -- How can 119 ministries be defining a Tabernacle shape so dogmatically at this point with absolute certainty while having only two dimensions for the courtyard, and only two or three possible "sides" identified on the Tabernacle itself, especially given the fourth (extra 50 width) dimension listed in Exodus 27:18??

If two "width" directions are specified in the literal Exodus 27:18 text, they must be accounted for in some physical way.  A round court made with two halves measure 50 wide seems to offer the best explanation, whereas a cuboid prism measuring a length of 100 long by 50 wide by 50 wide by 5 high would have four dimensions, and might need to be translated in a way as depicted below.  Conversely, two courtyard halves comprised of semi circles could very easily account for the 50 by 50 width language. 

 

 

Question 26 (@3:35) -- Why is 119 ministries so concerned with peoples credibility (in the plural), when the 119 ministries website openly proclaims "we readily admit that we have none"?

It makes no sense that people would want to openly profess that they lack credibility, as 119 has done on their web page.  While the name of the individual(s) of those who created the video cannot be readily determined from the 119 ministries "About us" page, it would seem that Jon Sherman and Mark Jacob were involved, but this is only an unverified assumption at this point, based upon the little that there is to go on.  Although the images of the personas have been added to the next image, the statement highlighted therein was actually found on their page verbatim in the "about us-history" section of their website.

 

Question 27 (@3:46) -- Why does 119 ministries resort to continuing in fearmongering tactics, trying to intimidate their audience from sharing information pertaining to the round Tabernacle when they have less than 4 minutes of "testing" performed by 119 ministries experts?

It's really not reasonable at this point to try to cast so much doubt at this point when giving an audience so little information. 

 

Question 28 (@3:55) -- How can 119 ministries justify posing a hypothetical question about what we'd (i.e., I'd) do when confronted, when they never extended the courtesy, even after being publicly rebuked, for NOT confront Andrew Hoy / Project 314?

As Noel Hadley states in his video, 119 ministries has also declined to do a moderated debate, which is yet another count of avoiding said confrontation.  

 

Question 29 (@3:57) -- Can 119 ministries identify which English Bible translations say "the Tabernacle was a rectangle"?

The 119 ministries video declares this repeatedly, yet search engines report exactly zero mention of rectangles in Exodus.  Rectangle isn't a popular English Bible word.

Question 30 (@4:07) -- Why does 119 ministries misquote and accuse Andrew Hoy of saying that "translators are lazy" while excluding qualifying remarks made in the citation, especially as the comment is made in regard to theologians instead of just translators?

This Tabernacle representation paradigm and tradition is more driven by theologians than it is by translators.  Moreover, 119 ministries is misquoting what I said and mischaracterizing what is said.  These remarks are misrepresentative and slanderous as such.  Actual marks are posted below for comparison and consideration. 

 

Question 31 (@4:19) -- Why does 119 ministries omit other facts surrounding their accusations, ignoring remarks that were made with respect to dealing with the courtyard post count, which 119 ministries gets wrong throughout the CGI model?

There are 21 posts on 119's demo CGI model, but it has the wrong number of posts as per Exodus 27:9 and 10, just as succinctly identified in the social media post and corresponding diagram below.

 

Question 32 (@4:56) -- Why does 119 ministries fail to account for the 50 by 50 language and the 100/21-20 & 50/11-10 courtyard post measurement and quantity dilemma in this oversimplified diagram while calling it the "biblical model"?

Contrary to 119 ministries' recent claim, the Exodus text contains no blueprint. The 119 ministries model depicted in their video is based on interpretation, inference, and preference, as well as mistranslation.  Given 119 ministries' two images, however, it is clear that their grossly simplified dimensional drawing on the blue background below is not fully in concert with the CGI model where they show 21 posts on the north and south side, and 11 posts on the east and west side.  This causes measurement dilemmas, however, as the 20 and 10 span of posts has a fixed measurement of 100 and 50 cubits respectively, whereas the CGI image depicts 21 posts on the north and south and 11 cubits on the west side.  

 

Because all Bible descriptions, measurements, and quantities must agree and not create logical contradictions, what is shown below is not quite a "biblical model", as it ALSO ignores the extra 50 by 50 term that we see in the YLT and in Hebrew original texts.  Unfortunately, 119 ministries overlooked this detail that was articulated on Andrew Hoy's facebook page, where the greater focus was apparently on the critique against the "lazy" ineptitude and indifferent persons than it was seen as having introspective value, thus proving the point.  There are no less than 6 different approaches or ways to interpret rectangular court post arrangements, each having its own limitation and contradiction.  As published in The House of El Shaddai book and posted in the facebook excerpt above and below, the 119 CGI model conforms to option 1 of 6 as shown in the upper right hand corner of the one page rectangular court summary sheet, thus creating redundant and different measuring points given the 20 vs 21 and 10 vs 11 post count and 100 long and 50 wide respective dimensions (shown by markup of 119 ministries borrowed CGI model).

 

 

Question 33 (5:40) -- Why does 119 ministries systematically exclude earlier and essential remarks with respect to Tabernacle courtyard curtains and how they relate to the PI constant multiple and approximation of 314?

If it WERE Andrew Hoy's model, it would look like the second image and instead of the first image below.  This gross "sin of omission" another case of bearing false witness as 119 ministries again tries to misrepresent Andrew Hoy's work.  119 ministries has NEVER been authorized to speak on behalf of Andrew Hoy and/or Project 314. 

Question 34 (@5:56) -- Why does 119 ministries cite Strong's number (H748) for ארך "length" (orech) when it's not found in Exodus 26 or 27?

This slide showing 2 incorrect references, as well as untrue statements, is once again bearing false witness and is indicative of either misdirection, incompetence, maliciousness, or carelessness.  Hoy does NOT claim what 119 ministries claims says and writes what he claims.  In the video, this qualifies as both libel and slander.

 

Question 35 (@5:56) -- Why can't or won't 119 ministries type and offer slides that show the Hebrew spellings and spectrum of Strong's meanings with those definitions? 

It's really hard for those who do know the Hebrew aleph bet to track what 119 ministries are saying when actual Hebrew words are not spelled out, which are not originally or fully identified by an indexing system less than 200 years old.  Furthermore this Anglicized and transliterated "color by number" approach to Hebrew language study (i.e., limiting Hebrew research to single Strong's number look ups and reference) often omits important information, e.g., prefixes, suffixes, conjugations, relevant adjacent entries/definitions, mismapping, etc. 

 

Question 36 (@5:56) -- Where does 119 ministries find "Hoy claim that Strong's H748 for ארך "length" (orech) should be TRANSLATED as diameter"?

As alluded to previously, this is a case of bearing false witness.  This is something never said by Hoy, whether in The House of El Shaddai, or on Project314.org. Diffusing meaning by translating by fracturing working definitions with more English words in a translation is STUPID.  This could be interpreted and understood as diameter in this particular case because of context, but not translated that way.  This is a case of projection, which 119 ministries does relative to rectangular interpretation.  Where Andrew Hoy says orech is length and length CAN BE a diameter, 119 goes so far as redefine the term to mean "rectangular length" in any and all cases. 

Question 37 (@5:56) -- Why doesn't 119 ministries pretend that Hoy is also purporting that all occurrences of ארך be translated as circumference as the length / circumference interrelationship is mentioned?

The slide below shows how DIAMETER and LENGTH and WIDTH are interrelated in the English language per basic dictionary definitions, and how Andrew Hoy / Project 314 has used the terms, along with radius and circumference, to explain things on the project314.org website.  Yet 119 ministries takes this excerpt out of context and extrapolates it in a hyperbolic way far beyond the original context.  This is academically dishonest and a clear case of bearing false witness.

 

Question 38 (@5:56) -- Why doesn't 119 ministries know that diameter can referred to as either a "length" or "width" according to ENGLISH dictionary definitions?

See slide above.

 

Question 39 (@5:56) -- Why does 119 ministries not show their audience the complete meaning of Strong's H753 for ארך "length" (orech) as it's found in Exodus 26 and 27, not limited to distance, but also pertaining to time as reckoned by curved path heavenly luminaries or sun dial shadow motions?

Trying to impose more restrictive meanings to simple Hebrew terms (as 119 ministries would have people believe) with widely accepted meanings (pretending it's always a rectangular referral beyond well established concordance meanings) requires arguments of great substance that are never provided by 119 ministries within the short video.

 

Question 40 (@5:56) -- Why does 119 ministries not show and teach their audience phonetic English transliteration variants so that they could make better Edenic connections and leverage the Hebrew that's lost in their native Western tongues?

See above.

Question 41 (@6:15) --  Why does 119 ministries present their audience with a false choice that insists that radius and diameter can be neither a length nor width dimensions, rather than proposing that the most universally applicable English term be used in translation?    

It stands to reason that readers of translations should be empowered to the extent possible with the best information to make a decision of their own.  

Question 42 (@6:15) -- Why does 119 ministries cite Strong's number (H7337) for רחב "width" (rochav) in verb form when it's not found in Exodus 26 or 27?   

While the verb form fittingly shows how this רחב term is used to express width or something that has been widened, 119 ministries is mistakenly citing the verb form.

 

Question 43 (@6:15) -- Why does 119 ministries accuse Hoy of saying that Strong's H7337 for רחב "width" (rochav) "should be translated as radius", and later translated everywhere as radius?   

This is bearing false witness again; furthermore, the H7337 it is not the form referenced by Exodus or Bible translators, as it is H7341 in the noun form as it is cross referenced.

Question 44 (@6:15) -- Why does 119 ministries not show the audience the meaning of Strong's H7337 for רחב "width" (rochav) as it's found in Exodus 26 and 27 per widely accepted Strong's and BDB lexicons?   

Full definitions are listed in the table under the next question below to give the audience a full perspective of word use in its many applications, which go far beyond RECTANGLE width.

Question 45 (@6:15) -- Why does 119 ministries not consider the meaning of the verb H7337 for רחב "widen" (rochav) that was inadvertently introduced? 

In Hebrew, nouns are founded from verbs, and a thing (noun) is what it does (verb), and does what it is.

 

Question 46 (@6:15) -- Why does 119 ministries not consider the paleo spelling of רחב "widen" in tent dimensions? 

Ancient Hebrew picture letters convey three letters that relate to "width" or perhaps "spread", given that the spread starts at the head (top and center or ר resh) and ends at the outer wall (ח or chet) of the tent (ב or bet).

Question 47 (@6:30) -- Why does 119 ministries expend over 7 minutes of the presentation acting in bad faith with the presumption that I am trying to redefine ארך and רחב throughout the balance of Bible texts? 

This is not only projection, but extrapolation made after bearing false witness, and it is far from being academically honest.  Reducing definitions used in translation just because the context would seem to support a more narrow and exacting translation in one location of the text is foolish.

Question 48 (@7:13) -- Why does 119 ministries insist that two measurements are sufficient to--and always do--define a rectangular shape while pretending that length and width cannot be used to convey measurements other shapes as in רחב and ארך are length and width are used the same as they are in English? 

Just because an object, either 2d or 3d, has a length and a width, that does not qualify it as being a rectangle, or for that matter, rectangular in shape.  Such a philosophy would make it impossible to measure other shapes that have obvious length and width characteristics, that is, something occupying space in two directions. 

 

Question 49 (@7:30) -- Why does 119 ministries presume that the ark of the covenant and its cover were spheres just because length and width CAN refer to a diameter and/or radius? 

First 119 ministries inferred "circle" everywhere after bearing false witness with respect to radius and diameter interpretation, and now 119 ministries is going further saying "sphere"…  And now, after all of that high end intro CGI, 119 ministries' audience is forced to envision a sphere by a 2d flat image.  This is not only strawmanning, but it is gross misrepresentation, and therefore an extensive run of bearing false witness. 

 

Question 50 (@8:57) -- From where does 119 ministries assume that the Ark of the Covenant is measured from, and why does 119 ministries depict the lid of the Ark of the Covenant as being sized differently from the base, as if its lid on top is longer while the box below is wider? 

If the sides of the ark of the covenant were round dowels or curved corners, it is not clear from where the short side of the rectangle end and where the long side of the rectangle begin.

 

Question 51 (@9:03) -- Why does 119 ministries suggest that Hoy would interpret Tabernacle curtains as anything other than rectangular shapes, while also ignoring the verses and Project 314 derived content which further explain their interconnection? 

Per the Project 314 website, social media, and book, all sources show wool curtains that start as flat rectangular shapes, which maintain the same linear dimensions even after being installed on a round frame made per Exodus 27.

Question 51 (@9:03) -- Why do 119 ministries' videos depict linen Tabernacle curtains are joined on the long edges contrary to Exodus 26:1-6 instructions and shown not to scale (shorter rear overhang length), and then ignore all of the problems resulting from the rectangular box frame Tabernacle, such as a sagging roof, stressed corners, artistic designs that are more the 5/6ths not visible, with curtains that are bunched up, unsecured, dragging on the ground, and left with open loops on the end? 

If colored linen curtains of Exodus 26:1-6 are slung over a boxy wood frame, they would sag in the center.  If covered by another layer of curtains, the decorated side would only be visible on the roof, negating the need to decorate others sides and portions.  If slung over a wood box, the corners would be stressed and eventually would tear at corners.  If slung over a cube like prism shape the 10 cubits of slack would hang all of the way to the ground, as the 10 curtains measuring 4 cubits wide would form an assembly would be 40 cubits, with 30 cubits covering the structure, leaving corners dragging in the dirt.   The curtains would shift out of place as they are not tethered to anything.  The assembly would migrate west, as the east end is depicted as unsecured.  Loops specified at both ends of the curtain at extreme east and west ends would serve no purpose, especially given that all curtains were to be made the same.  The rear west corners would bunch up and not fold over naturally as the curtain would not be fitted to form to the frame. 

 

 

Question 52 (@9:03) -- Why do 119 ministries' videos depict linen Tabernacle curtains are joined on the long edges contrary to Exodus 26:7-13 instructions and shown not to scale, and then ignore all of the problems resulting from the rectangular box frame Tabernacle, such as a sagging roof, stressed corners, extra loops, with curtains that are bunched up, unsecured, installed over the roof, dragging on the ground, not folded, and left with open loops on the end? 

If wool curtains of Exodus 26:7-13 are slung over a boxy wood frame, they would sag in the center.  If covering the colored layer of curtains beneath, they would obstruct visibility of all decorated curtains. negating the benefit of decorating both the side and the top.  If slung over a wood box, the corners would be stressed and eventually would tear at corners.  If slung over a cube like prism shape the 10 cubits of slack would hang all of the way to the ground, as the 11 curtains measuring 4 cubits wide would form an assembly would be 42 cubits (the end sheet to be folded in half, reducing the overall assembled length by 2 cubits), with 30 cubits covering the structure, leaving 2 cubits of the remaining 12 cubit remnant corners laying in the dirt.   The curtains would shift out of place as they are not tethered to anything.  The assembly would migrate west given the western overhang, as the east end is depicted as unsecured.  Loops specified at both ends of the curtain at extreme east and west ends would serve no purpose, especially given that all curtains were to be made the same.  The rear west corners would bunch up and not fold over naturally as the curtain would not be fitted to form to the frame. The curtains are also depicted with more than the 50 loops than what is called for in the scriptures, and the brass taches used to join the 5th curtain to the 6th curtain would serve no purpose.

 

Question 53 (@9:03) -- Why does 119 ministries have no explanation for making curtains all massive narrow strips of very specific sizes, when there is no obvious reason for making them in two assemblies (two linen sets of five per Exodus 26:1-6, followed by two wool sets of 5+6 of a greater length) only to make them into one of each assembly? 

The two curtain sets are specified in two halves and make two different rings, an inner ring of 10 linen curtains measuring 28 cubits long, and an outer ring measuring 314 cubits long that is comprised of 11 curtains at 30 cubits long, with the 11th curtain folded in half, and each curtain overlapping at the ends to allow for loop-to-loop joints.  Conversely, the rectangular model that 119 ministries is pushing has no explanation for the overall shapes, quantities, and lengths used in the supposed roof assemblies, which were specified in Exodus to be bounding and containing wall barriers. 

  

 

Question 54 (@9:03) -- Can 119 ministries explain the reason the rectangular Tabernacle needs a four layer roof, especially as the wool layer is described as being installed only over the SIDES of the Tabernacle? 

Two loose dissimilar fabric layers installed beneath two leather layers makes no sense.  No nomadic tents are made in this fashion.  The flat roof as depicted would pond dew or rainwater, ultimately causing the material to leak, mildew, and/or rot.  Exodus 26:13 only calls for the wool curtains to be put over / around the SIDES of the Tabernacle.

 

Question 55 (@9:11) -- Can 119 ministries explain why leather layer dimensions are not given while the fabric dimensions are, and for that matter, from where 119 ministries assumes that the ropes and tent stakes are called out in anywhere in the Exodus 26 Tabernacle fabrication / erection chapter details? 

There are no details for dimensions of the roof in Exodus 26:14 or elsewhere in the section, and there are never any instructions or provision for tent tethers or stakes given in the Exodus texts.  

Question 56 (@9:11) -- What would keep the tensioned wall tethers from caving the parallel planks used in the two wood walls inward, especially as the Holy of Holies curtain rod and east entrance screen curtain rods that are additions that never specified in Exodus 26? 

The Exodus texts make no mention of lateral north-south supports installed at the top of the frame.  What 119 ministries has depicted is mechanically unreasonable. 

 

 

Question 57 (@9:15) -- Why would 119 ministries assume "frames" are used when this is a minority English translation view of Exodus 26:15?

Strong's concordance קרש refers to a slab or plank or board as opposed to box frame as shown in 119's presentation.   

 

Question 58 (@9:15) -- Why would 119 ministries show the Tabernacle wall made with double and triple decker frame sections used when the Exodus 26 text calls for 20 per side?

There is no basis for multi part frame sections, which would no doubt warp as atmospheric temperature and moisture conditions varied and end up having spaces in between the joints.

 

 

Question 59 (@9:15) -- How does 119 ministries figure that the little wood stubby feet are going to keep the frames stand upright, or for that matter, securely anchored as the silver pieces beneath weigh a mere 70 lbs a piece or so? 

Silver bases provide minimal lateral resistance as bases, and in effect zero torsional resistance based on wood stub engagement length or depth.  See photos above. 

 

Question 60 (@9:31) -- Why does 119 ministries think that mission critical wood or boards or "frames" are specified as two dimensional objects, as it makes no sense for a board or frame to measure only 10 x 1.5 per Exodus 26:15 with no thickness dimension? 

Actual beam dimensions specified in Exodus 26:15 convey thickness by describing two beam widths, thus describing three dimensions.  However 119 ministries seems to neglect this dimension while claiming that everything was only a single rectangular dimension.  Boards cannot be mere rectangles.  Thickness is given as two widths are given, not as 10 long x 1.5 cubits wide, but rather as 10 long x 1 cubit wide by 1/2 cubit wide.  Thickness is often referred to as a width, e.g., two by fours were once two inches by four inches wide.   

 

Question 61 (@9:38) -- Does 119 ministries factor in the stubs protruding horizontally in their overall width dimensions, and can 119 ministries explain where the Exodus texts call for such features? 

There are no provisions for making male and female interlocking features in the Tabernacle's קרש boards. See image above.

 

Question 62 (@11:05) -- Why does 119 think that Noah's Ark had right angle rectangular corners? 

Just because something doesn't have an overall length and width specified doesn't mean that the sides were the same length, or for that matter, right angle corners or rectangular proportions. 

Question 63 (@11:09) -- Why does 119 exclude Abraham's journeys in the land of Israel, where he covered the length and width of the land?

If rochav and orech always define a rectangle, mention of these terms in Genesis 13:17 would mean that the land that Abraham walked through was modified fitted with trenches and/or tunnels through the earth's contour or upon bridges above it to maintain a perfect and straight rectangular path.  Moreover, רחב also refers to "street" or "road" and "widen", and it is known that streets in Israel are not strictly or literally rectangles or entirely rectangular.

 

Question 64 (@11:28) -- Can 119 explain how Zechariah's Scroll vision were omitted from their "רחב plus ארך equals rectangle" reasoning? 

A roll or a scroll cannot be a rectangle because it is NOT two dimensional. 

 

Question 65 (@11:28) -- Does 119 ministries believe that it is fitting to redefine words exclusively from context, artwork made via creative license, and inference? 

Starting with an incomplete sampling and then inferring a definition without consideration of etymology and widely accepted concordance terms isn't academically honest.  It's like playing mad libs backwards. 

 

Question 66 (@11:32) -- What does 119 say that length and bread are used to "describe a circle", when they wouldn't actually describe a circle, but potentially quantify or define the size of a circle? 

Clearly, time, length, arches, and distance are highly interrelated concepts--not limited to only linear geometric constructs, but curved distances or lengths as well.  Circles and arches both have span lengths or widths, especially in the case of the Tabernacle, which has a courtyard that is specified in two halves.

 

Question 67 (@13:00) -- Why would 119 ministries cite the ESV instead of Hebrew, be unaware of the second סביב (saviv) as a circumferencial reference following יסב (from סבב sovav), and overlook the back to back עגל סביב (saviv agol) reference at the middle of the 1 Kings 7:23 verse?

Using the ESV to fish out Hebrew terms makes little sense, especially in places where the translation omits half of the translated words.  Here again 119 ministries seems to cite the verb in Hebrew (based on the English phonics) and the list in the lower RH corner, but the noun of circumference is again cited in English.

 

 

Question 68 (@13:07) -- Is 119 ministries unwilling to acknowledge hidden references to PI made in the 1 Kings 7 basin description as much as they are unwilling to acknowledge how 314 is encoded in Tabernacle curtains? 

Just as 119 ministries has overlooked two references to סביב (saviv) and עגל (agol) in 1 Kings 7 texts, it would seem that 119 ministries is unfamiliar with PI constants encoded in ancient Hebrew, both by geometric description, as well as by means of gematria. 

 

Question 69 (@13:07) -- Why does 119 fail to inform the audience about the number of סביב saviv and סבב sovav references and about other words that refer to Hebrew rings and circles? 

There are more than two Hebrew words meaning circle or round, and there are numerous references to סביב saviv that 119 ministries is excluding, most importantly the Exodus 27:17 reference that is made ALONG WITH ארך orech and רחב rochav, which clearly proves that we are not limited to a RECTANGLE.  This use of סביב saviv clearly contradicts 119's claim, i.e., "what's important for our purposes is that neither of these words are used in the description of the Tabernacle". 

 

 

 

 

Question 70 (@13:07) -- Why does 119 ministries fail to bring Hebrew word spelling and Paleo Hebrew letters text into consideration when looking at Tabernacle courtyard texts?  

The Hebrew סביב saviv (as seen in Exodus 27:17) can be seen as being represented by a circle, two half houses, and an arm reaching out the the extent of the walls.

 

Question 71 (@13:07) -- Why does 119 ministries not consider Henrey Sully's work relative to Ezekiel's Temple and his use of סביב saviv?

Others in history have also consider a circular Temple wall, yet 119 ministries has indicated that Ezekiel's Temple was a cases where orech ארך and rochav רוב were used where it MUST be rectangular.  Sully's images from over 100 years ago show a round wall.

 

 

Question 72 (@13:07) -- Why does 119 ministries not consider the possibility of concurrent use of both polar and Cartesian coordinate systems by ancient Hebrews?

There are no stated reasons whereby 119 ministries can prove that Hebrews couldn't use more than one system of measurement or measurement reference. To say that Hebrews couldn't use polar coordinates with orech ארך and rochav רחב is an argument from silence at the very best. 

 

Question 73 (@13:39) -- Why does 119 ministries think that their hermeneutics aren't tainted by mistranslation, tradition, and general overall ignorance of the Hebrew text? 

It seems that 119 ministries cannot envision a case where length, width, and rotation could coexist.  A wrench has a given length, jaws that open to a width, and it can be rotated in various directions or distance in circumference or degrees.

 

Question 74 (@13:55) -- Why does 119 repeatedly pretend that Exodus says "rectangle?" 

In comparison to circle and other English geometric terms, rectangle gets virtually no mention in comparison.

 

Question 75 (@14:04) -- How can the public trust 119 ministries to make a value judgement about translators doing due diligence and the quality of their work if 119 ministries' expository critique cannot demonstrate evidence of subject matter proficiency?

As teachers say things that are demonstrably untrue, it is a betrayal of public trust. 

 

Question 76 (@14:09) -- Why does 119 ministries think that it’s a translators job to depict ANYTHING? 

Translators are to deal with the literal conveyance of texts; not the use of creative license to add or manipulate ideas to conform to a particular vision.  It is the job of artists, possibly theologians, and ideally engineers or craftsmen to interpret texts so that they can depict, i.e., make pictures, of what the translators are describing, albeit it is always best to go back to original texts not influenced by translators as opposed to relying upon translations.

 

Question 77 (@14:29) -- Why does 119 ministries conflate the Project 314 circular dome Tabernacle arrangement saying it is a mere "possibility" when simultaneously ignoring that it also matches a word-for-word description of Exodus texts?

Conversely, the rectangular paradigm does not accommodate the same level of word-for-word and verse-by-verse conformance with their physical models, of which many have been built in non-compliant ways. 

 

Question 78 (@14:48) -- Has 119 ministries team members been to Timna, or Ariel, or Utah, or California, or Oklahoma to see the actual parts used in rectangular Tabernacle modeling?

There is no evidence that 119 ministries is either speaking from knowledge, experience, or training when it comes to evaluating real-life physical rectangular Tabernacle models. The most basic review of Timna reveals that the model itself might be, biblically speaking, a form of fraud. 

 

Question 79 (@14:48) -- Why does 119 ministries decouple the concepts of mechanical viability and textual conformance? 

There is more to "testing everything" than just reading the text in the case of Tabernacle studies; after all, a model must not just comply with Exodus texts, but it must be physically capable of standing after the Bible instructions are followed to build the model.  The round dome Project 314 model has been demonstrated to work in real life via scale modeling, plus it meets ALL requirements and descriptions of Exodus texts.

 

Question 80 (@14:04) -- Has 119 ministries ever made actual blueprints for anything apart from the Tabernacle, and if so, why does 119 think that a blueprint (which is engineering industry jargon referring to graphical illustrations) is instead referring to mere written instructions?

There is no blueprint in Exodus because the Bible does not include obvious depictions or images of structures apart from what is conveyed by means of ancient pictorial language.

 

Question 81 (@15:03) -- Why does 119 ministries depict horizontal bars on the outer north and south Tabernacle wall as they do, and how did they determine spacing and length?

The arrangement shows offers no structural support or advantage.  No length is defined in Bible texts, but this can be easily inferred under the proper circular paradigm.

Question 82 (@15:03) -- How did 119 ministries arrive at the quantity of 60 gold rings shown on the north wall that supposedly secure the north and south bars in place, how are the rings attached, how do they function, and from what Exodus texts is this determined?

The Bible speaks of the "one" and "head" ring that is overlaid with gold, but never of a collection of gold rings that are attached to the Tabernacle walls or sides. 

 

Question 83 (@15:27) -- Does 119 ministries know that the term crude, while arbitrary to a point, has qualitative power in expression and characterization and not limited to aesthetics, and is therefore not meaningless?

Yes, shoebox is used mockingly, but proportions are not far off, and rhetoric, mockery, and hyperbole has literary value.  Otherwise Elijah and Jesus wouldn't have used them; e.g., "maybe your god is asleep or on a long journey".  But also, crude is alluding to something that is rudeimentary, i.e., immature, undeveloped, or in basic form.  And there aren't a lot of forms that are more structurally basic than a mere rectangle. 

Alternatively, I would have used "shipping container" or "Winnebago" but those are more variable in their proportions, in public familiarity, and have more syllables to pronounce, making them functional from the standpoint of caparison. Personally, I'd be quite content with the the fact that people might think of the amazing TORtise or TURtle of God's creation be used as a point of comparison to the round Tabernacle, so long as its not a BOX turtle.  I think a circus tent would be a wonderful point of comparison, it has crews, rings, theater, events, celebrations wonders, and congregants.

 

Question 84 (@15:39) -- Can 119 ministries name a single example of a rectangular model in real life that has been built in accordance with Bible specifications and descriptions? 

There is no way, because what is described in Bible texts is materially and functionally insufficient if made in a rectangular paradigm. 

 

Question 85 (@15:45) -- Why does 119 ministries make not less than 13 false claims pertaining to the shape of the Tabernacle, and why does their video transcript read more like propaganda than an impartial "test everything" evaluation? 

All claims that 119 ministries makes pertaining to the Tabernacle being rectangular have been disproven, on one occasion proven false with a counter claim that they make (see item 3 in the table below).

 

Question 86 (@15:45) -- Would 119 ministries concede defeat given the number of demonstrably false claims uttered, along with the self-sabatoging remarks and errors pertaining to Exodus 27:17, סביב (circle/saviv and not sovav), and untrue remarks uttered between 13:05 and 13:32?

Within 2 verses, as it describes the same courtyard, the Bible defines the length orech (100 cubits) and width rochav (50 by 50) of the courtyard, as well as its circumferential (i.e., ROUND) characteristics.   It is not right that 119 ministries pose as subject matter experts with respect to Hebrew or the Tabernacle while ignoring Exodus 27:17-18. 

 

Question 87 (@1:14) -- Why does 119 ministries not offer attribution for the majority of their CGI, including content that is taken from both Project 314 and all of the all of the rectangular CGI Tabernacle video from Jeremy at Bible Scenes?

Refraining from offering credit or attribution may well be construed as a violation of copyright, and perhaps of greater significance, is academically dishonest or at the very least disrespectful to the original content creators. 

 

Question 88 (@1:14) -- Why is the CGI model shown by 119 ministries more true to the Bible text and specifications than any physical standing model with respect to part descriptions and counts?

While the CGI model could not stand or function as depicted, the physical model shown as a proof case for 119's rectangular paradigm does not comply with Bible texts--given especially all of the structural channels used to prop up the Timna model.  This is proof positive that the model that 119 ministries is advocating is fiction. 

 

Question 89 (@1:14) -- Why does 119 show a model with four gate curtain rods (and only have silver capitals on the east side and NW corner) while seeming to neglect reference to curtain rods around the remainder of the court, which has the same hardware specified?

The same Hebrew terms used in Exodus 27:9-12 calls which calls for the same courtyard hardware as the Exodus 27:14-16 texts which are traditionally attributed to gate curtain hardware. 

 

Question 90 (@1:14) -- Why does 119 ministries show ropes and pegs surrounding the entire Tabernacle when none are listed in the Exodus texts, and why would you want them (especially at the gate given the trip hazards that they impose visitors and workers?

No ropes are called for as part of the Tabernacle.  No post "bases" are called for.  The posts themselves are stuck into the ground.  There is no need for ropes if the ends of the posts themselves are subterranean. 

 

 

 

Question 91 (@1:40) -- What is the function of the single ring that 119 ministries is showing on top of the wall on the northwest corner, and why is not on the southwest corner, and where does Exodus text call for this?

There is nothing in the Exodus text calling for a single gold ring mounted on top of the walls. 

Question 92 (@1:40) -- Why does 119 ministries show a curtain rod for the posts and curtain separating the holy place from the most holy place when there is no text that calls for that part?

Exodus 26 never includes a large gold curtain rod.  See image above. 

Question 93 (@1:40) -- Why does 119 ministries show the holy of holies veil and posts braced by walls in the north-south direction with nothing to secure them to the wall, and furthermore, what is to brace them or keep them from toppling over in the east-west direction?

There is nothing in the Exodus 26 text that speaks of the holy place veil attachment to or bracing between between the north and south wall.  See image above. 

Question 94 (@1:40) -- Why does 119 ministries show four posts perhaps 4" x 4" or larger being required for mere vertical dead weight fabric curtain support, and why not just attach a curtain rod to the outer walls in a similar way that the so-called frames are notched? 

Vertical Holy of Holies veil or curtain weight does not justify such large vertical posts; neither does the supposed 4-layer fabric roof.  See image above. 

Question 95 (@1:40) -- Why does 119 ministries show three entry portals between the holy place and most holy place, with all of them being either partially or entirely blocked by what is presumed to be the altar of incense?

Basic ergonomics principles would discourage one from making handles that sat on the floor or a large assembly that would largely block an egress path, regardless of how seldom it might be accessed.  See image above. 

Question 96 (@1:40) -- What does 119 ministries think that west most corners boards on the exterior of the building do, and how are they attached, and why wouldn't there be a problem given that this would further concentrate loads on points and corners on the overhanging curtains?

Apart from a mysterious ring at the top of the corner boards, there seems to be no indication in this design that there are any provisions for securing the north and south walls to the west walls by means of corner planks.  The text doesn't seem to identify any interconnection detail either given the rectangular paradigm.  Surely, it would be advantageous to place the corners on the interior if reinforcement were the objective, as it would yield comparable structural benefit while simplifying exterior curtain arrangements.  See image above. 

Question 97 (@1:40) -- Why does 119 ministries show the Ark of the covenant poles on the floor in this overhead view, while they were elevated on the other dimensional drawing on the timestamp near 6:57?

When images are portrayed inconsistently, it will confuse the audience and would seem to imply that 119 ministries doesn't have a firm grasp on these furnishings, or that the designs are assumed to be arbitrary. See image above.

Question 98 (@2:03) -- Why doesn't 119 show 20 court posts on the north and south sides, or, for that matter, 10 posts on the west side as per Exodus 27?

Exodus 27:9-12 clearly speaks to 20 posts on both the north and south sides of the Tabernacle, with only 10 on the west side.   

 

 

Question 99 (@3:50) -- Where does 119 ministries think that Exodus calls for 6 or 7 silver collars per courtyard post, and why does the model use more silver than allocated per Exodus 38?

Exodus 38 only allocates 1775 shekels for the court posts, which amounts to about 30 shekels per post, which would barely make enough silver for a single ring or collar, much less 7 of them.

 

Question 100 (@3:50) -- Why does 119 ministries depict WOOD courtyard posts when wood is not specified?

Exodus 27 calls for copper or brass multiple times, for the gate posts, for the west posts, and for the north and south posts, never calling for wood anywhere in the courtyard description.  See image above.

 

Question 101 (@3:50) -- Can 119 explain how would priests keep clean feet between the laver and tent entrance if animals were slaughtered at the entrance of the tent of meeting?

Having a small bird-bath sized laver for cleansing water wouldn't go far if whole animals were slaughtered.  Furthermore, the location of the bath relative to the main structure is suspect, as the priests were supposed to clean both hands and feet before entry.  Priests that had clean feet would ultimately need to walk over sand and dirt and probably blood and guts before entering the main tent. 

 

 

Question 102 (@3:50) -- Can 119 ministries explain why they have depicted five massive posts for the sake of holding up the dead weight of east entrance screen curtain (as opposed to four required for the Holy of Holies) when the posts don' seem to carry other loads, and can 119 explain how these are attached to the balance of the structure?

Exodus offers no provision for any horizontal gold covered roof support placed between the north and south wall.  It makes little sense to have pole 1 and 5 braced up against the north and south walls when there is so little vertical load to carry. 

 

Question 103 (@3:50) -- Why does 119 ministries show the outer two layers of leather tied down while other fabric layers limp and blowing in the breeze, especially seeing that the Timna model adds extra materials to keep the lowest set secure?

If 119 ministries cannot depict what the text shows with consistently, the audience is likely to be confused and unlikely to understand why they endorse different systems concurrently.  See above for CGI representation (made with tensioning ropes on the last two layers and zero tethers on the first two fabric curtains, and compare to image below of the Timna model, which uses steel braces instead of tethers on the outer curtain layer, skipping the two layers in between, while then tensioning the first linen (probably a poly synthetic) or lowest layer. 

 

Question 104:  Can 119 ministries make a convincing case that they did their due diligence in "testing everything" and researching Andrew Hoy and the round Tabernacle content before releasing their video?

Given responses, evidence, and multiple witness citations herein, it is clear that the 119 ministries "Was the Tabernacle a Circle" video is misrepresenting and repeatedly bearing false witness against both Andrew Hoy and the Bible texts, as well as making other statements that have been shown to be demonstrably false. 

 

Question 105:  If the 119 ministries team the Tabernacle subject matter expertise that they claim, where can the public find evidence of 119 ministries drawings and research (apart from the 11 channel YouTube set, which doesn't show the Tabernacle building mechanic specifics)? 

Throughout the 119 ministries video, 119 ministries claims to speak from authority on the Tabernacle subject matter, implying they have subject matter expertise in the areas of Hebrew language, engineering and/or construction, and the Tabernacle design and texts themselves.  The Timna build is not an example of a biblically compliant model (even the white linen cherub curtain should give that fact away), and the Bible Scenes model is not physically or structurally viable or fully biblically compliant either as depicted. 

 

Question 106:  If the 119 ministries team is indeed comprised of Tabernacle subject matter experts, how many times have you spoken in third party interviews to share subject matter expertise?

The 119 ministries team has yet to share vast Tabernacle knowledge and expertise by means of interviews and/or on a platform that is not their own.

 

Question 107:  Did 119 ministries systematically and prejudicially exclude key points in Andrew Hoy's / Project 314's exegesis and arguments in hopes of dissuading the masses from investigating the content on their own?

A review of the seven or eight minutes of relevant content in 119 ministries' "Was the Tabernacle a Circle" video, 119 demonstrates a fractional command of the round Tabernacle design and subject matter knowledge. and coincidentally fails in their review and application of four our of the four Hebrew words that they introduce.   If the omissions were at best accidental, 119 would seem to have serious competency, discernment, or comprehension problems; whereas if the omissions were worst case deliberate, 119 ministries team has certain pride, honesty, and moral integrity problems.

 

Question 108:  Does 119 ministries offer any other internally and independently generated or yet-to-be published model depictions or research, that is, Tabernacle modeling information apart from Jeremy Park's unattributed and Bible Scenes animations that were integrated into the 119 presentation?

In the recent 119 ministries video, the balance of the graphical content seemed to be derived from unattributed third party (Jeremy Park of Bible Scenes), and there is no evidence that 119 ministries has actually done any of the "heavy lifting", that is, applied the intellectual rigor that is required to build a 3d model by themselves.

 

Question 109:  Did 119 ministries thoroughly investigate Bible Scenes animations, testing them for Biblical accuracy, especially given the expressed concerns that Jeremy Park, the original content creator, has expressed regarding conformance challenges encountered while developing the CGI? 

Per discussions with the original CGI content creator of the rectangular Tabernacle that 119 ministries is using, Jeremy Park from Bible Scenes, expressed some concerns regarding the CGI model that he built, as per the recent correspondence excerpt below:

Hi Andrew, I have worked with many Christian producers over the years and seen many "holes" in so much of what has been represented. I have even politely asked tough questions and have mostly been met with abruptness or simply fobbed off with an excuse when the question couldn't be answered (on one occasion even direct anger). I understand that a lot of people build ministries and then may find out along the line that what they thought was true turned out not to be (or vis-versa), at which point they have too much to risk by "changing their minds". I've been a Christian now for almost 40 years and in that time have had my mind changed many times, I expect it to be changed again (probably many times) before I meet the Lord and then again when I meet him.

I am happy for you to use any of my work in whatever manner you choose (positively or negatively), you can use my name and even mention that I did indeed struggle with certain aspects of the construction. I won't mind at all. If it turns out to be a better representation of what the Tabernacle did indeed look like them it's got to be worthwhile.

These remarks, along with all of the non-compliance and inconsistencies cited throughout this battery of questions, should not instill 119 ministries with confidence beyond reason; to the contrary, it should leave 119 ministries with the commitment to double down on their testing efforts.   

 

Question 110:  Did 119 ministries ever build their own physical scale rectangular Tabernacle model?

Within literature elaborating upon the rectangular Tabernacle model, there is a tendency to borrow from other images created by other artists, whereby there is variance as to how the Tabernacle was made, which is usually limited to benign and usually aesthetic detail.  But few focus on the actual mechanics of the frame.  Unfortunately, until these plans are made physical and three dimensional, the delusional artistic renderings are assumed to stand by their own power in accordance with the two dimensional artists' imagination.  Building a real world three dimensional model is different.  Unfortunately, these details which prevent the whole structure from collapsing are ultimately lost in the shuffle in the 2D to 3D conversion, with most just pretending the small details are immaterial or are just not worth flushing out. 

 

Question 111:  Why does 119 ministries say that the Hebrew קו is from 1 Kings 7:23 (which uses קוה or H6961)  and means "circumference", while ignoring the reference to קו (H6957) in 2 Chronicles 4:2?

The term קו and קוה refer to a line or cord, which can be used in measurement in different capacities (think like a tape measure).  It can be drawn across to measure diameter and it can be wrapped around an object, whether round or polygon, to measure perimeter.  Yes, H6961 might imply circumferential as it qualifies the measuring cord with the parentetical "as if for binding", but it would seem that this across vs around distinction has escaped 119's attention per H6957 definition, where it also references a string used in music, which are obviously tensioned across cavities or boxes of varying shape (harp, lyre, guitar, violin, etc.) as opposed to merely around a circular basin.  We also see in music a chord with the chord coming from a string that is spanned over a circle, which in geometry is known as a cord. 

 

Question 112:  Why does 119 ministries demand for the Tabernacle texts to use קו to prove the Tabernacle a dome? 

In YouTube comments, 119 ministries wrote "If the Tabernacle were meant to be a circle or dome, the Hebrew text WOULD use the word קו (kav, ""circumference""), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, which describes a round basin."  So again, not only is there the wrong Strong's reference and spellings used here (not much unlike what 119 ministries has done in the video in terms of סביב and ארך and רחב), but there is a logical disconnect.  To say that in order for a dome to be constructed, there MUST be mention of a line is akin to saying it is impossible to make a wheel without making reference to a tape measure. 

 

Question 113:  Why is 119 ministries intent on using arguments from consensus, tradition, and authority to disprove a circular Tabernacle and courtyard complex?

Popular opinion doesn't establish truth or fact; it merely documents the fact that there is consensus of some sort.  Tradition is nothing but longstanding consensus.  Errors are not like fine wine where they get better with age; the age of an error doesn't reconcile it to be true just because of its vintage.  Furthermore, authority is also highly arbitrary as it is ultimately contingent upon what one agrees to submit to.  I would never submit to 119 ministries as an authority in matters of Tabernacle studies, and I have 118 other questions well documenting why I would be extremely hesitant to do so. 

 

Question 114:  Why does 119 ministries expect and demand to see קו and סבב in Exodus texts to establish the Tabernacle as being circuLAR or a dome, while ignoring the word for "clockwise"?

The translators translate two different Hebrew words in similar English fashion.  In Exodus 26 and 27, as the frames are being laid out, the original text uses נגבה and תמינה, which is translated as "south side southward".  In Genesis, Jacob's 12th son isn't named "son of my south" but rather as "son of my right (hand)".  The jamin or yamin in Benjamin is right.  The Tabernacle frames are made in a clockwise progression according to the texts, starting from the east, passing through the south, turning around the west, and returning in the north.  SOUTH and RIGHTWARD is how it should be translated... yet 119 ministires tries to sustain the "translators are good enough", even though through the course of these questions I have identified multiple errors of both Bible translators and the 119 ministries team using little more than well established concordance definitions. 

 

Question 115:  Why does 119 ministries believe that the Tabernacle was a "temporary" structure, or that because a rectangular one would be more simple to fabricate and erect that it must have therefore been rectangular?

In YouTube comments, 119 ministries states, "The Tabernacle was a temporary, movable structure, meant to be taken down and set up repeatedly. A dome-shaped structure would require far more complex engineering and assembly than a tent made from easily transportable beams and fabric."  But this is a pathetic and incorrect view.  According to the book of Kings, the Tabernacle remained in service for 480 years.  Seeing that the Tabernacle stood longer than either the first or second temple, it's short of fitting to categorize the Tabernacle as "temporary" just because other religious idiots have made the "temporary structure" claim and it sounds like it's worth repeating.  Now that it's been established that it stood the test of time, it's also fitting to consider the other claims, i.e., "easily transportable beams and fabric".  Little has 119 ministries considered the weight of the wood and the multiplication of weight that would be required if texts are translated according to the rectangular paradigm.  Because 119 ministries presumes the incorrect connection of the curtains, it follows that the frame that they put beneath the curtains in some way correspond with the fabrics presumably above it (where 119 ministries sees "roof", the Bible calls for walls).  As mentioned previously, and as ALSO shown in Exodus 27:18 in the רחב חמשים במחשם or "width 50 by 50" text, for the sake of brevity, Exodus beams are described as being 10 long x 1 x 1/2 wide, much in the same way where we might think of a board "width" as being a 2x4. 

Unfortunately, the rectangular paradigm people have no answer to the thickness or depth dimension of wood beams used for walls, albeit Rashi assumes a board 1 cubit thick by 1.5 cubit wide.  It is traditional, and ultimately necessary, to uphold the 1.5 cubit width narrative for the rectangular shoebox paradigm advocates, so that they have a south and north wall of 20 beams x 1.5 cubits wide = 30 cubit long structure, so that it could match the idiotic and incorrect assembly of fabrics, which 119 ministries, just like the traditional and generally technically oblivious religious clergy preceding them, decides to ignore this in their analysis.  Never mind the fact that the Bible gives more words and attention to the Tabernacles' curtains than it does to the ark of the covenant, people opt to pay them no mind, because they are not "cunning work", as the Bible states in Exodus 26:1--they are just fancy decorative and artistic cloth.  But regardless, the implications in Tabernacle model build and haul difference is that when Project 314 advocates a beam that measures 10 x 1 x 0.5, the rectangular folks are assuming advocating 10 x 1.5. x 1 (if they think of thickness dimensions at all), resulting in 3 TIMES the wood weight for a "tent" with solid walls and creating or containing a mere 1/17th of the space.   So yeah, the large dome would require thousands of animal skins to make the single layer leather roof, but the weight of all of that leather could easily be compensated for in the savings of all the hauling of 3X the wood.  So with a 25" cubit, the weight of a single beam would jump from nominal 2000 lbs (depending upon the actual density of the wood species, of course) to 6000 lbs.  And 119 ministries thinks the rectangular Tabernacle would be "easily transportable beams"... no wonder why the rectangular advocates want to pretend the beams were only specified as two dimensional length and width objects. 

 

Question 116:  Can 119 ministries produce any corroborating witnesses willing to testify against specific and actual research as published by Andrew Hoy and/or Project 314?

Presently a single 119 ministries "teacher", who is identified only by a 119 polo shirt is speaking ill of and misrepresenting Andrew Hoy and Project 314 Hebrew Tabernacle research and published content.  New Testament texts encourage us not only to make diligent inquiry, but to literally entertain accusation against elders unless they are corroborated by two or three witnesses. Saying at a superficial level that others "don't like my content" or "don't like my conclusions" isn't what this is all about; rather, 119 ministries needs to produce actual credible witnesses with REAL NAMES (not anonymous teachers with matching shirts) that would be willing to testify to exegesis SPECIFICS.  119 ministries has yet to produce a single credible witness, as the comments generated thus far offer as much credence as does an AI bot. 

 

Question 117:  Does the 119 ministries team believe it will be able to continually ignore or dodge viewer comments and rebuke as they pertain to round Tabernacle questions while still being respected within the Bible teaching community?

According to Bible texts, people should not be eager to be teachers as those who teach are judged to a higher standard.  Those elevated to the mantle of professional minister are not elevated as such that they may speak down in condescending ways--especially in places where they do not have actual expertise, but rather are put in higher positions to help lift others up.  To date, 119 ministries responses' to rebuttal and public objection have been not only condescending and dismissive, but coming from a position of relative ignorance and baseless pride.

 

Question 118:  Does the 119 ministries team believe that they have a large enough subscriber base and/or a large enough ministry team consensus that would entitle them to disregard viewer grievances and bully opponents into submission?

Old Testament texts speak of justice in a way where nobody is above the law, and where leadership interceded and offered special sacrifices on behalf of the congregation. 

 

Question 119:  Will 119 respond to these questions and points of rebuttal by retracting the false information and seek to make restitution for time lost, slander, and damage done to the reputation of Andrew Hoy and Project 314, or will 119 ministries double down and continue to ignore such grievances?

Multiple witnesses on 119 ministries YouTube channel testify to misrepresentation, and have done so since not only after 119 ministries "Was the Tabernacle a Circle" video went live.