Uncategorised

OrignialComments

  • @phyllisadams385 2 months ago
    To be fair Mr. Hoy is an architect who took time off to learn the Hebrew language before he started this project. He used only the materials listed in the Bible. He also followed the building instructions in the Bible.There is an excellent YouTube video on this on Rob Skiba’s channel. If memory serves Mr. Hoy tried making the rectangle temple but it did not work with the material list given in the Bible. I find it fascinating that Mr. Hoy’s version is shaped like the firmament, it also resembles a footstool (Matthew 5:35 nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great king.) and would be wind resistant in the desert.
    62
    Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
      It really sounds like you're "worshipping" Hoy, rather than the clear undeniable translation of the Hebrew words used.
      2
      Reply
    • @phyllisadams385 2 months ago
      @ I’m sorry you misunderstood my point. I will try to explain it where you can understand what I meant. My point was they unfairly left out his qualifications to take on this project and the work he did before attempting to build the replica. This wasn’t a rushed project just thrown together with guessing by a person with zero building skills. I hope you have a clearer understanding of what I meant. If not let me know and I’ll try again.
      24
      Reply
    • @orandachildren1051 2 months ago
       @phyllisadams385  It didn't sound like worshiping at all. I think the guy is triggered lol.
      21
      Reply
    • @phyllisadams385 2 months ago
      @ thank you. I know I’m not the greatest at wording so I always try to explain things better when someone seems to not understand what I am trying to say.
      13
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago
      Andrew Hoy is fluent in Hebrew. He lived in Isreal and furthered his education there. It was his desire to know Hebrew so he could read the scriptures in the native tongue. He knows that every translation is an interpretation through men, so he put in the time to know the Word in its original language. I have his book and his architectural diagrams, and I am currently studying this concept out. People are so quick to judge and condemn. They know nothing about Mr. Hoy. Their ignorance will keep them blind to the truth, and it will be their folly. His qualifications are conveniently left out of this video. Therefore, the whole truth is not being presented. Thank you for trying to speak the truth on this channel. However, some people aren't interested in all the facts. Take your wholeness and shake the dust off your feet. Sadly, there are people who like their heads in the sand. They will not search out the matter. They already have their minds made up.
      22
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  🤦‍♂
      1
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago
      He also knows what Deuteronomy 4:2 states... do not add to or take away from the Torah. Knowing this, the rectangular model adds to the dimensions of the tabernacle and violates this instruction. With Andrew's degree in engineering and his ability to read the Hebrew text, he found that the cutians were constructed the wrong way. Plus, the rectangular structure has wool laying on top of linen, which violates the instruction not to mix linen and wool. Both linen and wool have a frequency of 5000, and when mixed, they cancel each other out. Their frequencies run in opposite directions. Andrew Hoy's model, the 10 linen curtains are attached like a connected ring at the bottom, and the wool is for the top, which doesn't mix them together. The wool CAN NOT be covering the linen. Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11. Therefore, there is a great error in the design of the rectangular model and how they are laying wool on top of linen.
      15
      Reply
    • @phyllisadams385 2 months ago
      @ thank you. I knew he followed Deuteronomy 4:2. I remembered he had found issues when comparing the rectangular design with the material list given. If I remember correctly he also found the amount of wood needed for the perimeter of the rectangle would exceed the amount in the material list given. I just felt like his work was unfairly represented in this video. I think a lot was lost in translation of the instructions on the building of the temple because the translator’s expertise is not in building instructions . I have also heard teachers questioning the translation of the use of badger skin since the badger is unclean. My opinion, Mr. Hoy’s model resembles the firmament and the footstool both mentioned in the Bible which that alone has God written all over the design.
      6
      Reply
    • @jeanene72 2 months ago
       @katrinahchurch6222  Well, the instructions not to mix wool and linen, is not to have them WOVEN together; it is ok to have them as separate pieces. The priest wore wool tunic over linen undergarment. As a garment creator (seamstress), I was interested in understanding this and researched it. The Hebrew word is Shatnez, and it refers to an actualy cloth that is named "linsey-woolsey" which is what is prohibited. It's fine to layer the two fabrics.
      7
      Reply
    • @rickblake3674 2 months ago
       @jeanene72  Thank you. Your taking the time to research and think through this type of issue is refreshing. This looks like the mindset that even 119 is trying to encourage from scripture: test everything, HOLD to what is true.
      2
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago
      Could you give me the scripture where it states that the priesthood wore wool over linen?
      1
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago
      The Word of YAHUAH does NOT say the priests wore wool over linen.
      1
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago
      Be careful when giving instruction about putting these two fabrics together, even laying them on top of each other. You better be darn sure you are correct.
      1
      Reply
    • @Thesmokymountainman 2 months ago
       @phyllisadams385  I looked at this years ago and thought of the Cell shape in our body. I’m not sure he’s correct but if interested see The Gopher and Badger on my Ch. See the parallels of Noah’s Ark the Tabernacle and our Skin.. about 3 minutes long.
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago (edited)
      We appreciate Mr. Hoy’s background. However, his qualifications in architecture do not necessarily override the well-established linguistic and historical understanding of the Tabernacle’s dimensions. The key issue is not whether the Tabernacle could theoretically be built in a circular shape, but rather whether the Hebrew text itself supports that conclusion. While Mr. Hoy may have attempted to construct a rectangular Tabernacle and found difficulties with the materials, his interpretation of the biblical text is where the primary issue lies. The Hebrew terms orech (אֹרֶךְ) and rochav (רֹחַב) are consistently used throughout the Bible to describe rectangular dimensions** (Exodus 27:18, Exodus 25:10). If a circular structure was intended, the biblical text would have used different terminology—such as kav (קו) for a diameter, as seen in 1 Kings 7:23 when describing the round bronze basin of Solomon’s Temple. Additionally, every known Jewish and Christian translation—spanning centuries—renders the Tabernacle’s layout as rectangular. If Mr. Hoy’s interpretation were correct, it would mean that every translator in history misunderstood the Hebrew text, which is highly unlikely. Regarding the resemblance to the firmament or a footstool, these are interesting symbolic connections, but the Bible does not describe the Tabernacle as needing to resemble the firmament or a footstool. What God did explicitly command was a specific set of dimensions, which describe a rectangular structure. If there is any evidence from ancient Hebrew sources that supports Mr. Hoy’s interpretation, we would be glad to review it. However, based on the Hebrew text, historical translations, and scholarly research, the rectangular interpretation remains the most textually sound conclusion.
      6
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @katrinahchurch6222  We appreciate your passion for studying the Scriptures in the original Hebrew, and we encourage everyone to search these matters out carefully. Our position is not based on dismissing Mr. Hoy’s qualifications, but rather on examining the biblical text itself and how the Hebrew words used in Exodus consistently describe rectangular structures throughout Scripture. While Mr. Hoy is fluent in Hebrew and has experience in architecture, fluency does not guarantee an accurate interpretation, particularly when every known Jewish and Christian translation—including those done by Hebrew-speaking scholars—consistently describes the Tabernacle as rectangular. If Mr. Hoy’s interpretation were correct, it would mean that every translator and Hebrew scholar for thousands of years misunderstood the language, which is highly unlikely. We also recognize that translations involve interpretation, but that is precisely why we go back to the original Hebrew words used in the biblical text. The terms אֹרֶךְ (orech, "length") and רֹחַב (rochav, "width") are consistently used to describe rectangular dimensions (Exodus 27:18, Exodus 25:10). If the Tabernacle were circular, we would expect the Hebrew word קו (kav, "line" or "circumference"), as used in 1 Kings 7:23 when describing the round basin in Solomon’s Temple. This is not about personal attacks, nor is it about refusing to "search out the matter." Quite the opposite—our goal is to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and ensure that interpretations align with the clear meaning of Scripture rather than relying on new, unverified theories.
      2
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @phyllisadams385  We appreciate your concern for following Deuteronomy 4:2 and ensuring that nothing is added to or taken away from the Torah. However, the argument that the rectangular Tabernacle model "adds to the dimensions" is not supported by the Hebrew text. Rather, the rectangular structure is derived directly from the biblical measurements given in Exodus 26 and 27. The Hebrew terms used for the Tabernacle’s dimensions—אֹרֶךְ (orech, "length") and רֹחַב (rochav, "width")—are consistently used for rectangular structures throughout Scripture (Exodus 27:18, Exodus 25:10). If the Tabernacle was circular, the text would use קו (kav, "line" or "circumference"), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, where it describes a round object (Solomon’s molten sea). Regarding the mixing of linen and wool, the prohibition in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 refers to wearing garments of mixed fibers (shatnez), not to using different materials in construction. If the Tabernacle’s construction violated Torah, we would expect Moses—who was directly instructed by God—to be corrected on this point. Yet, God repeatedly affirms that Moses built the Tabernacle “exactly as he was shown on the mountain” (Exodus 25:9, 40). Additionally, the claim about "fabric frequencies" canceling each other out is not found anywhere in Scripture. This argument is a modern, scientific-sounding theory that has no basis in biblical exegesis. While it is interesting that different materials have different properties, the Torah’s commands regarding linen and wool are specifically about clothing, not construction materials. The rectangular model does not "add to" the Torah—it is the natural reading of the explicit measurements given in Scripture. If there is solid linguistic or archaeological evidence supporting a circular model, we would be open to reviewing it. However, it would require demonstrating how every known Hebrew scholar and Bible translation has misread the text for thousands of years
      5
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  you cannot appreciate my background as an architect. Because I am not an architect. We will agree that the key issue is whether the Tabernacle text itself supports the circular conclusion. In the meantime, please stop spreading rumors and misrepresenting what I have and have not said. Thanks.
      6
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  Your position is not based on dismissing my qualifications, but it is also so far without demonstrable evidence of subject matter expertise from either a linguistic or mechanical standpoint. What you've presented in this video is a mixture of cherry picking, strawmanning, and obfuscation. The same goes for your entire Tabernacle series, where I could very easily refute your represented model part on a verse-by-verse and part-by-part basis.
      7
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  Again, we have more obfuscation. Exodus 26 and Exodus 27 never gives any dimensions of the Tabernacle structure itself. Only final dimensions of the courtyard are given. As for expecting archaeological evidence, I'd say that it's pretty hard to decipher the footprint of a tent by archaeological dig. After all, tents are not known for leaving footprints on the ground the survive through the ages (although it is possible that some evidence of ground clearings might be found). Apart from that, unless we find the tent remains Per Barfield's Copper Scroll research, I'd say that waiting and hoping for archaeological evidence to settle the matter is pretty far fetched. After all, even if there was a large frame found that fit my exegesis to a tee, you'd still find yourself discounting it in favor of the sketchy dig results at Shiloh by the likes of Strickland. As for the "thousands of years" problem and your appeal to authority, consensus, and tradition arguments that you rely upon, it might be wise to consider that these are logical fallacies that prove nothing. I have visited and surveyed Israel's Timna and Ariel Tabernacles, and both are made contrary to the Bible texts, using many parts not identified that are made contrary to Bible descriptions. You can pretend that they "can build" Tabernacles according to the rectangular shoebox interpretation, but in the end, they will add and take away from Bible texts such that they might stand to even mild weather.
      9
      Reply
    • @phyllisadams385 2 months ago
      @ thank you for your reply. No offense was intended towards 119 ministries. I really don’t have a side in this trivial topic. My concern was the lack of information provided about how he came to his conclusions. The video and your reply sounds like you guys didn’t do your usual outstanding research on all points of your concerns with his design. Your documentary and reply sounds like you just saw a picture and disagreed with it. If you guys are calling him out on being wrong you should have done the work and watched the videos and read the book so you would know how he came to his conclusions. My observation was just an observation, I did not imply it was in the Bible. We as believers are allowed to have observations without reprimand of its not in the Bible. I made my comment because your documentary was short of information on the why and how he came to his conclusion, and now we know you didn’t do the research to have that information. I also thank you for the information on the wool although I didn’t mention wool unless auto correct change my word wood to wool.
      7
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @phyllisadams385  I think I can say that to what might also be 119's point, this should be more about what the text says than "taking sides". However, I would disagree with you on one single point, as I think 119 would as well, this is NOT a trivial matter. If it says "thus sayeth the LORD", then who are we to diminish divine writ a "trivial matter"? Consider that if the BIble only was intended to tell us about salvation, frankly, it would then contain only that and nothing else. The implications of this discovery do go deep, and probably have some people shaking in their proverbial boots. Consider the possibility that if the same people are telling you about salvation is and how it works are telling you how God's dwelling place was made, maybe it's time to take a moment and stop and reflect and reconsider our assumptions as well as thinking of to who or what we pay homage to with respect to our studies. The same people who don't understand the Tabernacle are telling you what its significance is. Don't you find that to be disconcerting in some way?
      7
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago (edited)
      @Project314 I am so disappointed in 119 ministries on how they handled this video concerning the model you have presented for consideration. I feel that they should have tried to reach out to you in a loving way and had you on for an interview to fully hear the matter out before disregarding it. Proverbs 18:13. I am currently reading your book, seeing how we are approaching the Torah portion on the Ark and the Mishkan. I heard your interview with Rob Skiba a long time ago and have been interested in the design and properties of the materials from an electrical engineers perspective, from insulators, conductors, and frequencies. There is a reason for every word and every instruction YAHUAH gave to follow, or they could be electrocuted, hence Aaron's two sons... Thank you for taking the time to look further into YAHUAH'S dwelling place and giving everyone another perspective to consider. I am enjoying your book, and the visuals really help to see the design and possible construction. I also love the idea of Pi and think it's spot on! May YAHUAH bless you and keep you. Shalom and many thanks.☺️❤
      10
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @katrinahchurch6222  thanks for sharing and for your encouragement. I'm delighted to hear that you are reading and enjoying the book. As far as your other inquiries, are you an EE by chance or perhaps I should say by choice?
      4
      Reply
    • @praiseYAHalways 2 months ago
       @Project314  what is an EE?
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @katrinahchurch6222  Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. We understand and respect your disappointment, and we appreciate your interest in studying YAHUAH’s instructions and design for the Tabernacle. 1. Engaging in Discussion with Love & Truth We agree that discussions like these should be approached with love, humility, and a genuine desire for truth (Ephesians 4:15). Our goal in responding to this topic has never been to disregard alternative views without consideration, but to test everything against Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The primary issue is not whether Andrew Hoy’s model is interesting or creative, but whether the Hebrew text actually supports it. 2. Why We Did Not Conduct an Interview First You referenced Proverbs 18:13 (“If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame”). This is an important principle, and we agree that we should carefully evaluate any claim before responding. However, this does not mean that we must interview someone before testing their claims against Scripture. If a new teaching presents an interpretation that contradicts the biblical text, it is our responsibility to examine and respond to it. That said, we are open to dialogue and would welcome further discussion if there is new evidence to consider. 3. The Core Issue: What Does the Hebrew Text Say? The biggest challenge for the circular Tabernacle model is that the Hebrew text explicitly describes the dimensions using words that have always been understood as length and width, not diameter and radius. The words orech (length) and rochav (width) are used to describe rectangular objects throughout Scripture (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were meant to be circular, the text would use kav (circumference), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, which describes Solomon’s round basin—but it does not. 4. The Role of Engineering & Material Properties We appreciate the interest in the electrical properties of the materials used in the Tabernacle, and we agree that YAHUAH’s instructions were precise for a reason. However, engineering observations cannot override the plain meaning of Scripture. If God described the Tabernacle as rectangular, then any engineering insights must align with that shape rather than redefine what the text says. 5. Encouraging Further Discussion We sincerely appreciate your willingness to explore these topics, and we welcome further discussion in a respectful and meaningful way. If there is any scholarly linguistic evidence supporting a circular Tabernacle based on biblical Hebrew, we would be happy to review it.
      2
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @phyllisadams385  Thank you for your thoughtful response and for clarifying your intent. We appreciate your engagement and your concern for ensuring that discussions like this are handled with thorough research and fairness. 1. Addressing the Research Concern We understand that it may seem like we dismissed Andrew Hoy’s conclusions without sufficient research, but that is not the case. We have reviewed his key claims, videos, and arguments, particularly as they relate to his interpretation of the Hebrew text. Our primary focus has been whether the biblical text supports the idea of a circular Tabernacle—not whether the model is interesting or physically possible. If Hoy’s entire case depends on reinterpreting the Hebrew words for “length” and “width” to mean “diameter” and “radius”, then that is the core issue we must test. 2. Why We Did Not Focus on Every Aspect of His Work We did not create a point-by-point refutation of every detail of his engineering methodology, material properties, or theoretical advantages of a dome, because those elements do not determine what the Bible actually says. If the Hebrew text does not describe a circular Tabernacle, then no amount of engineering ingenuity or theoretical efficiency changes what was commanded. That said, we are always open to reviewing additional information. If there are specific linguistic or textual arguments from his book that we have not addressed, we welcome them for further discussion. 3. On Making Observations We absolutely agree that believers can make observations and discuss different possibilities. We were not reprimanding anyone for that. However, when an alternative interpretation of the Tabernacle’s shape is presented as biblical truth, it is our responsibility to test that claim against Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Our concern is not shutting down discussion, but ensuring that any interpretation is rooted in what the text actually states. 4. Encouraging Further Discussion If you feel we have overlooked a key argument from Hoy’s book or research, we invite you to share a specific section or scholarly source for review.
      1
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @Project314  Thank you for your thoughtful response. We fully agree that this discussion should be about what the text says rather than “taking sides”. Seeking truth in YAH’s Word should always be our focus. 1. The Importance of the Tabernacle’s Design We agree that nothing in Scripture is trivial—if YAHUAH gave specific instructions for how His dwelling place was to be constructed, then it is important to understand it correctly. However, the shape of the Tabernacle is not a salvation issue, but it does impact how we interpret Scripture. If we redefine key biblical words (orech and rochav) to fit a new interpretation, that opens the door to broader issues of how we handle God’s Word. 2. Testing Assumptions vs. Rewriting Scripture We absolutely should test assumptions—but we must do so through the lens of the Hebrew text rather than through modern engineering preferences or symbolic theories. The burden of proof is on those introducing a new interpretation—especially when it contradicts thousands of years of Jewish and Christian understanding. 3. The Concern About "Who is Telling You the Truth" We understand the concern that some who teach about salvation may not fully understand the Tabernacle—but that does not mean every long-held interpretation is automatically wrong. The entire ancient Jewish priesthood (who served in the Tabernacle) and every ancient Hebrew-speaking scholar understood the Tabernacle as rectangular. If the Hebrew text actually described a dome, why has no historical Jewish or Christian source recognized this until now? 4. Moving Forward: What Does the Text Say? If there is specific evidence in the Hebrew text that orech (length) and rochav (width) mean “diameter” and “radius”, we would be open to reviewing it. However, simply challenging assumptions without providing linguistic support does not strengthen the argument for a circular model.
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @praiseYAHalways  EE=Electrical Engineer
      2
      Reply
    • @praiseYAHalways 2 months ago
      @ OK thanks
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago (edited)
       @119Ministries  Being that the text doesn't specifically state the hebrew word "malben" mem, lamed, bayt, nun, for rectangle, nor does it specifically say the hebrew word "chug" chet, vav, gimal, for circle. Both concepts are assumptions. You keep speaking about the words for "length" and "width", "orech" and "rochav" these are used in the text because the curtians panels were measured using length and width. This would stand to reason that these terms would be used. However, it doesn't negated the fact that rectangle or circle is not in the text. It all depends on how the curtains were joined together, either on the long sides or short sides. The arrangement on the long side to long side would reveal a rectangle. However, if the panels were joined on the short ends, you would get a long connected strip that, when connected, would form a circle. Since, none of us were there during the creation of the Mishkan, everyone is adding into the text with their idea of rectangle or circle. I appreciate your response in love, and I hope mine is also coming in love. We are all just a bunch of people who love YAHUAH'S Word and we are trying to understand it as best as we can with our English translations. One day we won't be doing this for we shall all know. Until then, may YAHUAH guide us in His truth. And may we love one another as we love ourselves.
      4
      Reply
    • @katrinahchurch6222 2 months ago
       @Project314 I am not an EE. I am only looking into the Ark of the Covenant, the Mishkan, and the Ephod from their perspective and also from Nikola Tesla's perspective. He stated in an article, published in 1915, titled "The Woner World to be Created by Electricity," "Moses was undoubtedly a practical and skillful electrician far in advance of his time. The Bible describes precisely and minutely arrangements consisting in a machine in which electricity was generated by friction of air against silk curtians and stored in a box like a condenser. It is very plausible to assume the Aaron's sons were killed by a high-tension discharge." We know that it wasn't Moses that was the electrical engineer, but Bezalel. And we also know the curtains were not silk, but linen. Linen from my understanding won't carry a static charge, hence the reason the priests had to wear linen. I am also thinking the ephod worked like a faraday cage. There is so much to consider! One more treasure YAHUAH showed me about the Mishkan. There were 10 linen curtains and 11 wool. 10 is the Hebrew letter, yod. These 10 curtians were divided and grouped by 5. 5 is the Hebrew letter Hay. There were 11 wool curtains grouped by 6 and 5. 6 is the vav and 5 is the Hay again. So 10, 5, 6, 5. Yod Hay Vav Hay. YAHUAH had them numerically arranged His name in the design of His dwelling place in the curtians. This is a reflection of us where His name on our DNA. We are the Mishkan where He dwells! 10 + 11 = 21. 21 is the Hebrew letter Shin and means consume and is picture of teeth. It is the one letter that identifies our YAHUAH. 11 is the kaph and means to cover, allow and tame and is picture of an open palm. Your covering on the Mishkan is like YAHUAH'S Hand that covers His people. 10 is yod and is a picture of the hand. Hand that covers. 10 and 11. Yod and kaph. Put together... YAHUAH'S Hand that Covers. Baruk YAHUAH! HALLELUYAHUAH. I stand in awe of Him. Shalom my brother in YAHUAH. May He Baruk you to overflowing!
      Reply
    • @Thesmokymountainman 2 months ago
       @phyllisadams385  When comparing Numbers 2 and the 12 Tribes we find 3 camps on each side. In Revelation 21 we gave 3 Gates on each side. Rectangular or circular? The only square that I can think of is the Most Holy Place with the Ark of the Covenant. It’s an interesting topic but let’s not divide over it.
      1
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @katrinahchurch6222  Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. We truly appreciate your heart for seeking YAHUAH’s truth and your commitment to loving discussion. That is the spirit in which we also want to approach this topic. 1. The Absence of "Rectangle" or "Circle" in the Text You are absolutely correct that the Hebrew words for "rectangle" (malben) and "circle" (chug) are not explicitly used in the text. However, we must ask: does this mean the text is unclear, or does the wording provide enough information to determine the shape? The key question is not just whether the terms "rectangle" or "circle" appear, but whether the dimensions described in the text align with one shape over another. 2. The Meaning of "Length" (Orech) and "Width" (Rochav) in Context You pointed out that orech (length) and rochav (width) are used to describe the curtains, which is true. But these terms are also used to describe the entire Tabernacle structure (Exodus 27:18). If the Tabernacle itself were circular, the Hebrew text should have used a different terminology, as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, where a circular object (Solomon’s basin) is measured by diameter and circumference using the word "kav" (קו). 3. How the Curtains Were Connected You raised an interesting point about the way the curtains were joined together possibly determining the shape. However, Exodus 26:7-9 describes the joining of the curtain panels in a structured way, with specific numbers of loops and clasps. This description strongly suggests an orderly, rectangular layout rather than a circular one. The boards and frames of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:15-25) are also described with specific corner connections that would be difficult to reconcile with a circular design. 4. Are We "Adding to the Text"? We agree that none of us were there to physically witness the construction—but that does not mean that all interpretations are equally valid. The longstanding Jewish and Christian understanding of a rectangular Tabernacle is based on the natural reading of the dimensions given in Scripture. If a circular Tabernacle was what Moses described, we would expect linguistic or historical evidence supporting that interpretation—but none exists. 5. Moving Forward in Truth & Love We truly appreciate your graciousness in this discussion, and we share your desire to seek YHWH’s truth in humility and love. If you believe there is specific Hebrew linguistic evidence that supports a circular model over a rectangular one, we would love to review it. Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement. May YHWH guide us all in His truth, and may we continue to seek Him together. Shalom!
      2
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
       @119Ministries  That was a very loving and gracious response to Katrina. There is one more point that can be added. Rev. 21 describes Heaven coming down as a cube shape, where all sides are equal. Taking the measurements of the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle, it also works out to be cube shape, all sides being 20 cubits.
      1
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
       @119Ministries 😂 now you sound like a religious denomination. “It’s always been that WAY so that’s ALWAYS how it’s going to be”. TOTALLY RIDICULOUS
      9
      Reply
    • @sarahwy13 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  Every English translation in Acts when the early beliefs met with Paul states they met on Sunday, but the original was Shabbat. So trust in the English translations are right to be questioned. Not the original language, but the English translation. I grew up in the largest Bible translation mission , so have been around this my whole life.
      4
      Reply
    • @rwieging 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106 when I read that in Rev, I always envision a cube also. But technically speaking, it could also be a pyramid shape and all of those dimensions would still work! I personally still envision a cube though. Just a fun thought!
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
      @rwieging  Rev 21:16 "" "" twelve thousand furlongs: the length and the breadth and the height thereof are equal." When all sides are equal like " dice" It's a cube.
      Reply
    • @SperrysSpot 2 months ago
       @Project314 amen!
      1
      Reply
    • @MellovesYah 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  to "trust" Bible translators is great error...🙏🙏🙏Jeremiah 23
      3
      Reply
    • @jonathanmaestas2115 2 months ago
      @119Ministries Deuteronomy chapter 12 I've seen a lot of your videos on food laws. And I do not eat pork, seafood and other stuff like that Not because of your videos, but because God has led me to these insanely well explanations of why not to But this chapter confuses me and I wanted to hear your take on it and see if you can do a video on this chapter where God talks about If you're in a Kingdom and there's no clean animals, you can eat the unclean with the kings in that land but pour out the blood. Like water? A small note on that all the sacrifice laws each time they talk about pouring the blood onto the Earth. I don't know if some people do no to connect that with Jesus Christ on the cross. How his blood got poured on to the ground like water? When they poked him with the spear
      Reply
    • @jonathanmaestas2115 2 months ago
      @119Ministries Deuteronomy chapter 12 I've seen a lot of your videos on food laws. And I do not eat pork, seafood and other stuff like that Not because of your videos, but because God has led me to these insanely well explanations of why not to But this chapter confuses me and I wanted to hear your take on it and see if you can do a video on this chapter where God talks about If you're in a Kingdom and there's no clean animals, you can eat the unclean with the kings in that land but pour out the blood. Like water? A small note on that all the sacrifice laws each time they talk about pouring the blood onto the Earth. I don't know if some people do no to connect that with Jesus Christ on the cross. How his blood got poured on to the ground like water? When they poked him with the spear
      Reply
    • @HAChrist 2 months ago
      @ Shalom, what is the estimated height of this tabernacle structure?
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 1 month ago
       @danhorsam2106  🙄🙄 All points of a circle are equal. In fact nothing is more equal..."Dice".🤦‍♂
      2
      Reply
  • @oimate4201 2 months ago
    I really appreciate 119, but on these fringier topics their stance is typically very predictable (holding to the most traditional view pointl). In the past, Andrew Hoy has offered to debate anyone on this topic. It would be really great to see 119 host an interview with Andrew Hoy from Project 314, since they would have some very reasonable and good questions.
    32
    Reply
    • @hadassahdelafuente4968 2 months ago
      Don’t give in, to debate, in these last dates many truths will come forth, but many, many more false teachings that want and do present themselves as truths, this is the way of the anti-messiah, and this is all this is
      2
      Reply
    • @jeanene72 2 months ago
       @hadassahdelafuente4968  He said INTERVIEW. (Hoy offered to debate the topic. A debate is NOT an argument, but a chance to present both sides of an issue. Most people today who "debate" don't know what that really looks like. ) I think it would be a show of respect to at least have Hoy personally answer the questions raised, rather than have someone else present his ideas, as some of what Hoy said has not been presented clearly here.
      8
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
       @oimate4201  "holding on to the most traditional viewpoints" so... somebody who believes first three chapters of Genesis, believes it only because it's traditional ?
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      @oimate4201, yes, and interview is how it should have gone down. And from there, in all fairness, a debate may have legitimately ensued.
      2
      Reply
  • @candicestiebens347 2 months ago
    Hey 119! I will start out with thanking you for doing all the hard work to produce this video! But here we go I’m a carpenter and I hear and use measurements all the time. Hearing these measurements recorded in the scriptures… to me it sounds like a rectangular shape is being described. Unfortunately I personally think you have made a fatal error in this teaching and would encourage you to remake the section where you display images and talk about the ark of the covenant and the table for bread. I think the images you chose to use and the way you decided to discredit the circle theory is making you look silly and will definitely be the talking points of any response videos Instead I propose that you give a more accurate description of what the circle theorist would actually believe (if they use orech and rochav consistently) The ark depiction is crazy first of all the lid measurements don’t list a height so why are you making the lid of the circular theory so tall… why not add a large rectangle on top of the other ark… wouldn’t that be fair. Also I would suggest based on hearing the measurements and thinking functionality you depict a bowl with the legs up to the rim and a plate sitting on top for a lid. Not a ball And the same thing for the table… who would hear thos measurements and think ahhh ball table. Have you never seen a circular table… the height measurement clearly indicates leg height not table thickness. Again why is the rectangle table not a cubit and a half thick… I think this one was quite rude… definitely not in step with testing everything. Just a thought - old 119
    32
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      sometimes you need common sense.
      1
      Reply
    • @jeanene72 2 months ago
      I agree, this video was a reaction. It is apparent from the outset that it was intent on debunking and ridiculing, not done with an open mind.
      7
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      @candicestiebens347 Our response is that the so-called "circle theorists" fail to engage with the Hebrew terms orech (length) and rochav (breadth), so it is unclear how they would account for the shape of objects like the Ark or the table. If they argue that these terms can apply to curved objects, they must also explain why other biblical measurements—such as those describing the Ark, the table, or the altar—are not understood as curved. Furthermore, if their reasoning allows for "length" and "breadth" to refer to curved dimensions, why should "height" be exempt from the same logic? The illustration may appear exaggerated, but that is precisely the point—it highlights the inconsistency in their interpretation of Hebrew terminology.
      1
      Reply
  • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
    Andy does great work, Shalom y'all
    31
    Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      Yes, this seems rather strange, especially seeing Andrew wasn't invited, in fact was ignored, to explain. Shalom Tracy.
      6
      Reply
    • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
       @kimgillham321  yeah, rather strange indeed. Shalom
      3
      Reply
  • @Thoreseus_ 2 months ago
    This might have been the worst 119 video I've ever seen. This was unnecessarily antagonistic toward someone trying to make sense of the scriptures. He clearly has expertise as a civil engineer, and makes a good argument for the design of the tabernacle to be more like a yurt than a box. You essentially equated his alternative view, which has practically zero impact on any primary theological doctrine, to be on the level of a false teacher, which is a massive condemnation, to be sure. This video was unhelpful and pointless.
    23
    Reply
    • @kemaberry3538 2 months ago
      Hmmm, your comment was considerably harsh. I read it before listening and was curious. I had heard also this theory. Which, by the way, is an argument used to support flat earth theory. So, this in itself helps mislead people. I don't feel this video was critical of anyone, but like all the others, they give valid support from the Hebrew, in context, and only warn us to check validity of one man's opinion. Perhaps you just took this personally?
      1
      Reply
    • @Thoreseus_ 2 months ago
      @kemaberry3538  it was their setup at the beginning. They set up a false dilemma that if we can't believe the bible when it describes the tabernacle as rectangular, then we can't trust the bible on more important matters. Claiming that a clear reading of scripture must yield a rectangular structure is not justifiable. Hoy uses good reasoning to conclude that the tabernacle makes more sense as a circular structure. I don't see how that leads to poor theology. Yes, flat earthers promote this because they like how it coincides with their cosmology, but even the bible scholars will tell you the ancient cosmology is the flat earth model. I just think calling Hoy a false teacher is a strong condemnation that is not warranted for believing the tabernacle could have been a different shape than what is commonly assumed.
      1
      Reply
    • @Thoreseus_ 2 months ago
      @kemaberry3538 I take issue with their setup at the beginning when he says if they can't get the shape of the tabernacle right, we can't trust them about other more theological issues. Or connecting it to the trustworthiness of the Bible. Most 119 listeners have challenged the plain reading of scripture in more important matters of faith and salvation. Considering the plausibility of a circular tabernacle seems considerably benign, and much less deserving of condemnation as a false teacher. Maybe I do take it more personally as an engineer myself, but I see someone practicing their faith alongside their reason to come up with an alternative, and, in some respects, more satisfactory model of a nomadic worship structure.
      7
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      Scripture does tell us in the end days we will reject sound doctrine and accept teachings that tickle out ears. Sound doctrine means taking Yah at his word and not trying to outhink him.
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      We appreciate your feedback and your desire for a respectful discussion. Our goal is not to attack anyone personally but to examine whether the biblical text actually supports the claims being made. Clarifying the Issue The shape of the Tabernacle is not a salvation issue, but accuracy in biblical interpretation matters. If we allow new interpretations that disregard the plain meaning of Hebrew words, that does impact theological trust in Scripture. We are not dismissing Mr. Hoy’s engineering expertise, but expertise in engineering does not override the meaning of the Hebrew text. Testing All Things The Bible itself calls us to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21), including new interpretations. The Hebrew words orech (length) and rochav (width) consistently describe rectangular objects in Scripture (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were circular, we would expect kav (circumference), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, which describes a round object. If every Hebrew scholar and Bible translator for thousands of years has understood the Tabernacle’s dimensions as rectangular, then the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise. Regarding the Tone of the Video If the tone came across as antagonistic, that was not our intent. We welcome discussion and do not consider alternative views as false teaching unless they distort core biblical truths. That said, if a new teaching misrepresents the biblical text, it is important to correct it, even if it is not a "primary doctrine." If Mr. Hoy or others can present concrete linguistic evidence from ancient Hebrew sources that supports his claims, we are open to reviewing it.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  it's not that it came across as particularly antagonistic, but rather as misrepresentative, ignorant, logically facetious. disrespectful, and arrogant. I say these things because you'd rather extrapolate assumptions not representative of me while ignoring other items while essentially trying to crucify my work in the court of public opinion. Your video is not thorough, neither is it correct. You cannot cherry pick two terms while ignoring Hebrew definitions and etymology and make a sound case or establish firm ground upon which to stand. Your experience as a professional minister do not trump my experience as a craftsman, my knowledge and training as an engineer, or my understanding of Hebrew. Conversely, I will acknowledge that for the most part, you tried to be "on point" dealing with linguistic issues (while ignoring technical ones and giving tradition a "pass" without testing everything). Test everything? No, you tested less that 2% and declared yourself the winner and expert, tradition to be unshakable, and me to be a misled fool or deceiver. As for being "open to reviewing it", doesn't it stand to reason that you would do this BEFORE you published? After all, it says that "the first to present his case is correct, until another comes along and questions him". Of course, there were no true inquiry in your presentation (otherwise I probably would have heard about it), just internal reasoning and self-assurance.
      3
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
       @kemaberry3538  please share the scripture that says we’re on the heliocentric spinning globe. We’ll wait.
      3
      Reply
    • @kemaberry3538 2 months ago
      @williamaltman9606  listen to Hugh Ross, astrophysicist. On YouTube.
      1
      Reply
  • @joesanders6069 2 months ago
    Just remember: 314
    21
    Reply
  • @ElohimsMaidservant 2 months ago
    I have read and studied Andy Hoy's book and the scripture on the tabernacle. His discovery is profound in that not only does it resemble a circle, the tabernacle also represents Father's clock; a 360 degree circle with four intercalary days embedded within for a 364 day year in the Tsadok Priestly calendar according to Enoch and Jubilees. The menorah is half the circle with the flames across the top representing the vernal equinoxes every spring and the branches of the Menorah representing the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer and the equator. The idea that Elohim would create a tabernacle that not only resembled the radius of the earth and the dome above where the luminaries circle overhead is amazing and mind blowing. He would never place us into a box like an institution who makes its graduates wear the miter board. Everything about Yah is circular including the Hebrew thought. I suggest analyzing the scripture while taking a closer look at the work done by Hoy.
    21
    Reply
    • @mythoughtsonfaith1031 2 months ago
      Yeshua kept a sighted moon, barley based calendar. The enoch/Tsadok calendar does not work.364 days every year would not allow the feasts in their proper order. Also the stars declare the months. Ezekial's 430 days proves that there is a 13th month year. Our Messiah has already shown us the proper calendar when he came here and kept the feasts at the same time as the Jews he lived with. Follow Messiah not men.
      Reply
    • @ElohimsMaidservant 2 months ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  Show me scripture where Yahushua kept the sighted moon. The Captains in 1 Chronicles 27 does not provide for a 13th month. Please be specific about the verses found in Ezekiel for I have found nothing in the book of Ezekiel which alludes to 13 months in a year as others have claimed. The Tsadoks are returning according to Ezekiel 44 and they definitely kept the Priestly calendar according to Jubilees and the astronomical book of 1 Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. King David set up the Tsadok Priestly order with the assistance of Yah by casting lots (1 Chronicles 15:1-27, 23:1-32, 24: 1-31). This order was kept even during Messiah's ministry; He kept the Tsadok calendar according to our study and discovery of two different calendars happening at the same time. The true calendar was later obfuscated by the jews who say they are jews but are not after the destruction of the temple. The planting of the barley has nothing to do with the start of the year, however, in Deuteronomy 28:4-5, 8, Yah promises that the fruit of the ground, the storehouses, and the kneading bowl will always be blessed when His commandments are obeyed. This includes being obedient to the observation of His time and not ours, then does the barley come in on time for His festivals. It is impossible for the lunar calendar to keep the festivals in their proper timing, as the moon's cycle is always 10 days behind and could never keep the 364 day year perfectly as the solar calendar, even after adding 30 days. There is a reason why the moon is under Virgo's feet in Revelation 12:1 and I can assure you it is not a good thing.
      5
      Reply
    • @eliora9108 2 months ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  that's interesting bc i've kept the zadok calendar for eight years and the feasts always fall in proper order.
      3
      Reply
    • @MellovesYah 2 months ago
       @ElohimsMaidservant  awesome!!! It matches the heavenly tabernacle!!
      3
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago (edited)
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  Did Yahushua observe Pesach the night before The Yahudim observed Pesach? He was hanging at the same time the lambs were hanging, and the same exact way the lambs hang, on a "Stauros", just as the Greek text says, and Yathed as the Ibrit Matis'Yahu text says., not on a "crux" how Jerome/Eusebius changed it hundreds of years later to fit in with his sun worship. So He wasn't eating Lamb with them, and certainly didn't partake in Unleavened Bread the next day. I don't keep the Tsadok calendar presently, however Adar II is a product of the Hillel II calendar. Do you know why they use the Hillel, and where they got it from/where they were when they originally fabricated it? Do you think Ha Mashiach used the Hillel II calendar?
      1
      Reply
    • @mythoughtsonfaith1031 1 month ago
       @SvenShalom  He did not observe pesach the night before, they had leavened bread with that meal, so not pesach, he desired to keep it with them, hence the prayer in the garden, let this cup pass. But as the passover lamb, he had to die on the 14th, to observe the first day of unleavened bread before that would not be keeping the commands, so he definitely did not do it incorrectly. The new testament records him and his family keeping the feasts at the same time as the Yahudim that he lived amongst. Had he not they would have wanted to kill him for that alone according to deut 13, but that was never a charge against him. Agreed a stake, not cross, that is pretty obvious by the text. Yes i know fully the history of Hillel II calendar, no it was not in use at the time of Yeshua, a sighted sliver, barley (mostly) based calendar was used. No zOstensiblyadok was not in use by anyone who was allowed into the temple. Adar II is not created by Hillel, it existed LLLOOOONNNNGGGG before him. And in fact the book of Ezekiel records a year with 13 months. You have to do math, which makes most people's eyes roll back into their heads and then they run away. But the date given in chapter 1 for him to start the 430 days of laying on his side and the date given in chapter 8 for him to be in his home sitting up talking to the leaders of Yahudah can ONLY be accomplished with a 13 month year, a 354 day, 364 day, nor a 365 day year can do it. So there is proof of a 13 month year in scripture. You just have to look. The qumran community was a cult, and not following torah, have you read their community rules, read it once and I think you wuld agree it was a cult. And probably did not last long because they did not really encourage the idea of propagation, woman were not held in high regard.
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  Obviously I'm not reading all of that of course. And I will give u that the word for bread in the Greek translation most end up using in a search of this passage is not unleavened ἄζυμος (asumos), but rather ἄρτος (artos) however, One, this has been disputed as a translational error for many decades, even before Ibrit translations were located that have matzah/chamets. But more than this, Yahushua outright calls it Pesach with His own mouth. SO we can wonder why on either, but He said what He said.
      1
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 1 month ago
      @SvenShalom A very fine parry sir. Surely they thought you were down without counter. Touche' my good man.🗡🙏
      1
      Reply
    • @mythoughtsonfaith1031 1 month ago
       @SvenShalom  Since you have no attention span, I will keep it simple, Wrong wrong ,wrong wrong, wrong wrong, wrong wrong, youre wrong, youre wrong, youre wrong, Insert bell chime timing for effect. If you have any attention span read below. Sigh, no it has not been dismissed as a translational issue, but since it doesnt fit your nartive, youll just change facts. You should read it all, then you would begin to understand the facts. Also when Judas went to leave, the others thought he was going to buy things. John 13:29. IF it was THEIR passover meal AKA feast of unleaved bread, THEN it would be a high day, and no work or buying or selling to be done. THE SCRIPTURE GIVES TWO WITNESSES THAT IT WAS NOT PASCHE. SO........ youre wrong, did I mention that?
      1
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  No. Short enough?
      1
      Reply
    • @mythoughtsonfaith1031 1 month ago
       @SvenShalom  I have an attention span, but your intellectual dishonesty shows enough.
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 1 month ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  Adar II was added by Hillel in 358 CE. There was 13 month calendars, including the Babylonian Calendar that Hillel originally "hijacked" and modified, but at that time (from when the Yahudim returned to Aretz Yisrael from the Babylonian Exile in 516 BCE until 358 CE) it was the month of Ululu – Elul, not Addaru – Adar. This is common historical record found many places, such as the Talmud Yerushalmi. Until the year 358-359 CE, there was no fixed calendar. The leap months were intercalated by the Nasi and the Sanhedrin in order to keep the lunar and solar years in sync.
      1
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  Au contraire chaber. I have been extremely intellectually honest, you simply weren't in favor of it because it played "devils' advocate" to your views, which in irony I didn't full sale disagree with, but you saw it fully one way and went on a blindly juvenile and overly lengthy rampage in an unnecessary defense, that admittedly superseded my interest.. Ahabah rabba achi.
      1
      Reply
    • @mythoughtsonfaith1031 1 month ago
       @SvenShalom  lengthy is not rampage, somethings take words to explain, but like I said an honest person would read it. But you lack the integrity, and simply disagree from a dogmatic perspective.
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
       @mythoughtsonfaith1031  I'm sure whatever you wrote is valid. You have a blessed day witto guy.
      1
      Reply
    • @mythoughtsonfaith1031 1 month ago
       @SvenShalom  I guess youll never know, shalom
      Reply
  • @NowIKnowAlef 2 months ago
    This is an awesome topic. It would be awesome if 119 could test Hoy's claim that the curtains are fastened end-to-end and not side-to-side. This is the basis of Project 314.
    20
    Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      Thank you for your comment! This is indeed an important topic, and we appreciate your desire to test everything. The way the curtains were fastened is a central part of Andrew Hoy’s Project 314 claim, so it’s worth examining in light of what Scripture actually says. 1. How Were the Curtains Joined? Exodus 26:1-6 describes how the Tabernacle’s inner covering was joined: “You shall make the Tabernacle with ten curtains… The length of each curtain shall be twenty-eight cubits, and the width of each curtain four cubits; all the curtains shall have the same measurements. Five curtains shall be joined to one another, and the other five curtains shall be joined to one another. And you shall make loops of blue on the edge of the outermost curtain in the first set… Then you shall make fifty clasps of gold and join the curtains to one another with the clasps, so that the Tabernacle may be a single whole.” Key observations from the text: The curtains were joined in sets—not into one long strip. Fifty loops and clasps connected them together to form a single unit. The joining method described does not naturally suggest a circular formation—but rather a structured, rectangular layout. 2. Does End-to-End Joining Create a Circle? Hoy’s claim is that if the curtains were joined at their short edges instead of their long edges, this would form a long strip that could be wrapped into a circle. However, the text does not describe one continuous strip—it describes the curtains being joined in sets, which would contradict the idea of a single, seamless ring. The boards and frames of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:15-25) clearly indicate a structural framework—which is difficult to reconcile with a circular design. 3. Have We Tested This Claim? The Hebrew text does not support the idea that the curtains were formed into a continuous ring. While we acknowledge Hoy’s background, our primary concern is aligning with the biblical description. If there is specific Hebrew linguistic or archaeological evidence supporting a circular Tabernacle, we remain open to examining it. 4. Encouraging Further Discussion We welcome constructive dialogue and encourage you to explore this further with us. If there are specific sources or arguments from Project 314 that you believe need a deeper analysis, please feel free to share.
      1
      Reply
    • @NowIKnowAlef 2 months ago
      It is SO AWESOME that you guys take the time to reply. I truly appreciate your efforts and commitment to communicating. I'll research further and be very specific if I find something. Blessings!
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  Well, finally we have 119 addressing a relevant point and comment. Too bad that the answers are wrong again. 1. Curtains were joined in two sets of 5 to form the משכן and a set of 5 and a set of 6 to surround the משכן. Exodus 26:16 and 7-13 both describe curtain sets with loops at opposite edges for interconnection with adjacent members, so that they could be one. Your rectangular layout leaves two end sheets of both wool and linen sets with unattached (read useless) loops. So yeah, polygon or circle are the only remaining options. This is a case of blatant denial on the part of 119. And this detail being casually omitted from the critique video goes to show how partial and fractional this "test everything" review was from the very beginning. This is why I and others have confronted you for misrepresentation. 2. Funny how you want to deflect into Ex 26:15-25 frame stuff here. And how you are contradicting your own claims in point 1. You think these sets were made into singular strips where the original shape and size of the strips that have NOTHING to do with the final assembly configuration. The fact that you think it is "difficult to reconcile with a circular design" is because your exegesis was so heavily anglicized and biased by religious idolatry / images from the very start. 3. You don't acknowledge my background. Because my background includes study of Hebrew in Israel. Where did 119 study Hebrew? You can deflect all you want and pretend that just because my engineering works that conversely that it does not meet the Bible descriptions. But that's because you'd rather try to gaslight and con your audience into an either-or paradigm, saying you need to follow engineering OR (119's Henglish/English) Bible (which cannot produce a viable rectangular structure, mind you), all while pretending that both the Hebrew AND the Engineering couldn't possibly be complementary. 4. Why would other people "want to share more things" , e.g., sources or arguments from Project 314 (primarily me here), for further analysis, when you consistently ignore most of your critics and can't grapple with sound reasoning and challenges throughout the entirety of this comments section? The fact that you are just first trying to explain away the curtain arrangement at present is proof positive that you have no clue as to what is going on, and to me, shows me how haphazardly you've (that is, both Mark and others at 119) reviewed my research from the beginning. And seeing that you try to present yourself/ves as an organization of unified thought just goes to show the carelessness of whatever technical peer review processes that you might do internally.
      12
      Reply
    • @Exodus26.13Pi 3 weeks ago
      End, cut end, cut off מִקָּצָ֖ה
      Reply
  • @reality4330 2 months ago
    I strongly believe it was dome shaped, it’s the only thing that makes sense. I rectangular box shape would blow away in a medium to high winds no matter how it was tied down. A dome shape repels very high winds easily. Also the way it’s described fits a dome shape
    20
    Reply
    • @tylerporter2171 2 months ago
      And what about all the smoke from the menorah and the incense table? with the dome and a hole at the top,You have much better ventilation!, with a box all that smoke is just getting trapped.
      5
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
       @reality4330  The dome also allows water to flow off not pool. And the dome also represents our anatomy, calendar and the 12 tribes.
      1
      Reply
  • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. roll you into a ball, and sling you into a wide land. There you will die, and there your glorious chariots will remain—a disgrace to the house of your master.
    19
    Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      " its dwellers are like grasshoppers. " Wait a minute here, do you all look like grasshoppers?
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      Thank you! The Tabernacle of Meetings is a representation of the Tabernacle of Earth, a dome.
      9
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  Wow, all your comments. You're not well are you sir? Life must be frustrating for you.
      2
      Reply
    • @Exodus26.13Pi 3 weeks ago
      Wow, that was sharper than any two edged sword.
      Reply
  • @carolelouday3196 2 months ago (edited)
    The engineering of the tabernacle as a dome is not baseless, there is history of building portable dwellings called "yurts". The English language is limited as you pointed out to length and breadth, but the Hebrew language is not that way. The Hebrew language is not that limiting. The artists doing your illustrations assume unsupportable engineering that is deception. Thus, flawed architectural imaging is added to the text. The artists have it wrong in my estimation. It seems to me that this engineer, Andrew Hoy, got a revelation from our heavenly Father on the way the construction was done with the exact materials' listed. Andrew Hoy has knowledge of Hebrew beyond that of this teaching and his research isn't singular. His architectural models are true to the biblical dimensions. I do not favor English over Hebrew. I believe Mr. Hoy proved the Hebrew words have a broader definition than what we assume from our English translations and artists' misconceptions. This video should be removed and an apology given for your lack of due diligence. This engineer's understanding is well based and visually so. Your illustrations are not in keeping with the materials list. You ignored the truth. The Hebrew word rochav is used for the radius and the Hebrew word orech is used for diameter. He recognized the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter 3.14 as he was studying the text. He went to Israel and learned the Hebrew language. He has written two books available on Amazon.
    19
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      What Phd in Hebrew have you consulted? .................... thats what I thought, nobody.
      1
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      We appreciate your interest in the biblical construction of the Tabernacle and the value of studying the Hebrew text. However, the core question is not whether a dome-like structure is possible or whether yurts have been used in history, but rather, what the actual Hebrew text describes. The claim that orech (אֹרֶךְ) means "diameter" and rochav (רֹחַב) means "radius" is not supported by Hebrew usage anywhere else in the Bible. These words are used consistently to describe rectangular measurements in multiple passages, including: Exodus 25:10 – Describing the Ark of the Covenant: "Two cubits and a half shall be its length (orech), a cubit and a half its breadth (rochav)" The Ark is a rectangular object, not circular, yet it uses the same terms. Exodus 27:18 – Describing the Tabernacle courtyard: "The length (orech) of the court shall be a hundred cubits, the breadth (rochav) fifty…" Again, these dimensions clearly refer to a rectangle, not a circle. 1 Kings 7:23 – When describing a circular object (Solomon’s bronze basin), the Bible does not use orech or rochav, but instead uses the word kav (קו), which means circumference: "It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and a line (kav) of thirty cubits measured around it." If the Tabernacle were meant to be a circle, why doesn't the text use "kav" as it does here? Furthermore, every known Jewish and Christian translation throughout history renders these dimensions as length and width. If Andrew Hoy's interpretation were correct, he would need to explain why all Hebrew scholars for thousands of years—including native Hebrew speakers—misunderstood these terms. Addressing the Claim of a Revelation We do not dismiss the possibility that God can reveal things to people, but a revelation must align with Scripture. We are instructed to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If an interpretation contradicts the plain meaning of Hebrew words, then it must be questioned. Addressing the Accusation of Deception You mentioned that our illustrations assume "unsupportable engineering" and that the video should be removed. However, our illustrations follow the explicit dimensions given in the text. If any concrete Hebrew linguistic or archaeological evidence can demonstrate that every translation is wrong, we would be open to examining it. However, personal accusations do not contribute to an honest discussion of the biblical text.
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  Sorry, but I am not obligated to explain why all Hebrew scholars for thousands of years--including native Hebrew speakers--misunderstood these terms in order to be correct. Again, appeals to consensus, history, or authority are logical fallacies, and I cannot be held personally responsible for what they (most of which are dead) supposedly thought. I don't make the claim that I received this as a matter of divine revelation. But maybe I should. After all, my work is all coming from plain text and Pashat level Hebrew. I saw no sun rays from heaven, bright winged "angels", or clouds when I was doing this work, and am not quick to stand in line trying to say that "I've received a revelation" like so many modern day charletons have. The exegesis speaks for itself, as does my physical models which can and have been constructed to scale. So, I'm sorry to say that in this case, my personal experience in modeling alone stands as a witness for me and against you. Conversely, you have never built a physical model, and many items that you have in your 3D animations do not conform to the Hebrew texts. Carole is correct in that your illustrations so assume unsupportable engineering. I can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
      7
      Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
       @Project314 you know why 119 is taking this stance, right? If they accept your work as truth, then the next natural step is to acknowledge the true shape of the earth. If they do that, they’ll lose subs and financial support because it is so divisive. David Wilber of this channel does some of his videos from a desk; behind him on the left shelf is a shiny globe. They don’t have the faith to step out of the lies. I love your work and have your book in my cart to purchase soon (next payday!). Shalom, brother!
      7
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
       @April4YHWH  Bingo sister.
      6
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
       @April4YHWH  Oh that makes so much more sense now- I knew the biblical earth position but hadn’t connected that to money and influence. So sad. I hope 119 can push past that and see the truth.
      4
      Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
       @kimgillham321  amen! It won’t go well for those that love the lie. Always seeking truth and not fearing change are key elements (and leaving pride & ego out of the picture!).
      4
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      @ Yes - and the truth is uncomfortable but necessary. And if embraced, is a relief.
      5
      Reply
    • @widepathdropout 1 month ago
       @April4YHWH  ding ding ding. There ya go! Elephant in the room!!!
      3
      Reply
    • @April4YHWH 1 month ago
      @ it takes faith to be able to confront the deceptions of the world. I hope this ministry can put on their big boy britches and be emotionally mature enough to seriously consider that they have been deceived just like we all were at one time.
      2
      Reply
  • @Hebraism 2 months ago
    119Ministries: Did you reach out to Andrew Hoy for comment before making this video?
    19
    Reply
    • @WindowWorldscapes 2 months ago
      Did you reach out to 119 Ministries before posting this comment?
      1
      Reply
    • @Hebraism 2 months ago (edited)
      @ What are you talking about? They made a public video critiquing a person’s research, why not ask them if they followed that protocol?
      6
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
       @WindowWorldscapes  🙄🤦‍♂🤡
      Reply
  • @sherriboatright110 2 months ago
    After reading Mr Hoy's book, I am a firm believer in the domed tabernacle.
    17
    Reply
  • @nephilimslayer5697 2 months ago
    Doesn't sound like you actually read Andrew Hoys book, and does seem like you are trying to sew division in the body, and THAT IS WRONG
    17
    Reply
  • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
    I'm not sure this has been properly researched. And, while Andrew isn't the only person who has found the round tabernacle, the Ethiopian people also have God's Church as a round building plus Yurts were prolific at the time as well, his (Andrew's) research and dedication have helped to raise awareness- I'm living proof of that fact. And, then to learn and see how the round tabernacle aligns to the calendar and our anatomy in ways that truely show us we are lovingly and intelligently designed. Plus, this discovery does not undermine the Bible as you imply, rather it requires us to read it more clearly and with more consciousness. Finally the use of the word "corner" is a mistranslation in most circumstances. It should say "wing". I'm utterly devastated that this production was aired without Andrew being able to explain, because once you see the truth, you can't unsee it. This is an instance where many are missing the beautiful truth. I hope you do the right thing per Torah, and speak with Andrew directly on your channel, ask questions to learn, so your followers can see the truth for themselves. I pray this through Yahusha HaMashiach and Ruach HaQuodesh.
    17
    Reply
    • @dafamily5253 1 month ago (edited)
      This is typical behavior for 119 since Moutria left. They also did a similar video about the name of YHVH dogging Nehemia Gordon, but never once acknowledged having tried to have a dialogue or debate with him. This kind of behavior is lacking in humility and integrity. I'm no longer interested in this ministry because of these tacky tactics. I also love Andrew Hoy's work; so simple, yet so profound. I also pray repentance over this ministry. B'shem Yeshua, amen.
      2
      Reply
  • @keithmiller3422 2 months ago
    Wow, did you set us up with your adherence to "Tradition."Andrew Hoy's argument concerning the consistency of the instructions was not even covered. Your argument on losing ones witness reliability pales as we discover more and more of the faulty interpretations in various translations. Nice try, but no cigar on this issue. I own Hoy's book, and it makes a lot on sense top me.
    16
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      So you think the Jews, the christians and Hebrew Roots are all wrong but hoy is right. really, snap out of it my friend.
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      We appreciate your engagement in this discussion. However, the issue here is not tradition—it is the actual Hebrew text and how it has been consistently translated and understood for thousands of years. The Hebrew Text Describes a Rectangular Structure The words used in Exodus—אֹרֶךְ (orech, "length") and רֹחַב (rochav, "width")—are consistently used for rectangular objects throughout Scripture (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). 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. Every Jewish and Christian Bible translation for thousands of years translates these dimensions as rectangular. If the Hebrew text truly supported a dome, why is there not a single historical translation that supports this interpretation? "Tradition" vs. Biblical Accuracy The argument that we are just "adhering to tradition" is a mischaracterization. We are following what the actual Hebrew text says. If every known Hebrew scholar—including native Hebrew speakers—has translated and understood the Tabernacle as rectangular, then it is not about tradition but about linguistic accuracy. Addressing Faulty Translations It is true that some Bible translations have issues, but the understanding of the Tabernacle’s shape is not one of them. The Hebrew words for length and width are not in dispute. If Hoy’s interpretation were correct, he would need to provide textual evidence that every Hebrew scholar and Bible translator has misunderstood these words for thousands of years. Respecting Different Views, but Testing All Things If Hoy’s book makes sense to you, we respect your perspective, but new theories must align with the Hebrew text. We are not rejecting the possibility of re-examining ideas, but the burden of proof is on those who claim every historical translation is wrong.
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  cut and paste the same answer all you like. It doesn't make it more true as you say the same things again and again, nor does it detract from or disqualify the points I've made and the exegesis that I've done. Of course, we are not so fortunate as to see a verse-by-verse interpretation of the Tabernacle structure (nevermind just the courtyard) as it is the real structural failure in your exegetical reasoning. You are correct in saying that I have a great burden of proof upon me. And I have answered that call with my book. Based upon what you are saying, I doubt that you've read it. The 119 motto is "test everything"... but you have not tested everything, especially as you have not studied existing or created your own shoebox model. Hashtag "experience counts".
      3
      Reply
    • @widepathdropout 1 month ago (edited)
      Tradition! That's what they are sticking to! Follow Yah, not man!
      1
      Reply
  • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
    Not adding or taking away from the word, and that includes what Moses was given for instructions. Yet the typical shoebox model needs extra lines to make it stand up. Now imagine high desert winds - which shape is more aerodynamic? I don’t agree with 119’s stance, but then again, 119 still believes in the Helios-sin-tricked model of Yah’s creation, as evidenced by David’s dark, shiny globe on the bookshelf behind his desk. Embracing deceit.
    15
    Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
      SO much this - נָשָׁא Transliteration nāšā' Pronunciation naw-shaw' Part of Speech verb Root Word (Etymology) A primitive root Dictionary Aids TWOT Reference: 1425 KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x The KJV translates Strong's H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x). Outline of Biblical Usage [?] to beguile, deceive (Niphal) to be beguiled (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive (Qal) utterly (infinitive) Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly. Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index) STRONGS H5377: Abbreviations † II. נָשָׁא verb only Niph., Hiph. beguile, deceive;
      1
      Reply
  • @keithmiller3422 2 months ago
    Point # 2. I suppose y'all believe in a spinning rotating earth rather than the dome covered stationary flat horizon earth Genesis depicts. The Hoy version seems to replicate the. said dome which most translators go with Copernicus rather than Yahvah of scripture!
    14
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      Yep,, the Earth is a sphere suspended upon nothing.
      2
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @keithmiller3422  Flat horizon? Then how come the sun sets 3 hours later in LA than it does in NY?
      1
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
       @timjones1583  Yesha'Yahu said The Earth is "chug" not "dur". He knew our language, he used dur when applicable, describing the earth, he used chug.
      2
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  It's called vanishing point perspective, The atmosphere is opaque, especially low. You know full well that was disingenuous before you said it. There are now countless videos made with hyper-zoom that clearly show the sun fade into nothing, not disappear bottom first. See videos: "WOW! The Truth About Zooming in on Sunsets Revealed!" "Sun Fade out #7 w Dave & Paige" "Sun fade out #4 with ND16 solar filter (gimbal fail)" less than 6 minutes total of your life. Shalom chaber.
      1
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  I think you're smart enough to know, this is Not a coincidence: - נָשָׁא Transliteration nāšā' Pronunciation naw-shaw' Part of Speech verb Root Word (Etymology) A primitive root Dictionary Aids TWOT Reference: 1425 KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x The KJV translates Strong's H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x). Outline of Biblical Usage [?] to beguile, deceive (Niphal) to be beguiled (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive (Qal) utterly (infinitive) Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly. Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index) STRONGS H5377: Abbreviations † II. נָשָׁא verb only Niph., Hiph. beguile, deceive;
      1
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
       @SvenShalom  Exactly!
      2
      Reply
  • @dunoze 2 months ago
    I look forward to Andrew Hoy's response !
    13
    Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
       @dunoze  Why would he say anything he hasn't already said? I simply see him ignoring Yah's specific words. Once one justifies ignoring Yah, then anything is possible. Satan is roaming!
      1
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  I should really ignore this childish comment but I will respond . The net seems to bring out the " meanness " in people . 119 have made a good and fair critique although I feel Andy may feel misrepresented and has to have chance to defend his position . To see Believers calling each other blind and of the devil is a sin that stinks . How can we grow up and move on if this is what you consistently find . Sad ! 🥲
      3
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
      @dunoze  The Truth. Yah's Truth is very narrow. It's very exclusive. Think of it as a vertical line extending from the ground to the sky. Everything that's on that line is Yah's Truth. Anything that's not on that line it's not the truth and therefore it's a lie. Satan has a whole bunch to work with not on that line. Yah tell us what his truth is, you can either accept it or not. What I'm saying is there are a whole bunch more options Satan uses that are not on that vertical line. Yah's exclusivity is not "mean" It's his love being expressed via his word.
      2
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @dunoze  I am going to ask you this question not to put you on the defensive but, to provoke you to really think about it. You say you believe Andy should have a chance to defend his position. If you are a defender of his position, shouldn't you yourself be able to defend it? Why wait for Andy?
      2
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @dunoze  You wrote: "I should really ignore this "childish" comment but I will respond . The net seems to bring out the "meanness " in people. So you don't think calling another poster "childish" is being "mean?"
      2
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  Unfortunately one of my comments in this thread has vanished . I had said that I would not engage if can not be " grown up " . From the comments here I see that that is unlikely . But as it happens you have peaked my interest so it looks like we will be entering an exchange . I would like to think that you remember that this is public and your "behavior " is already on display . See you there . Be nice please ! 😀
      1
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @dunoze  I always consider myself nice. Like I said Yah's Truth is sometimes not nice, because it's very exclusive.
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  Considering yourself nice and being nice can be quite different things . We shall see , the example so far has not been promising .
      1
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @dunoze  that is not a nice thing to say.
      2
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @dunoze  do you see how you keep making personal comments? It is just not necessary to get personal.
      2
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  nice cannot merely be self-defined, outside opinions tend to define and govern such definition.
      2
      Reply
    • @sarahwy13 2 months ago
      He replied in comments at the top. They attacked him without even reading his book or putting together the 3D model. It's ludicrous.
      4
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @sarahwy13  The comments have been educational . I have been setting time by to properly investigate his model and have been all the more encouraged that he is going in the right direction . I have been becoming more and more uncertain about certain things about 119 Ministries and this too is being shown .
      2
      Reply
  • @NasaLies2You 2 months ago
    I have been convinced it is. The website i shared blew my mind.
    13
    Reply
    • @pizzapilgrim6525 2 months ago
      What Website?
      5
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
      They do lie - נָשָׁא Transliteration nāšā' Pronunciation naw-shaw' Part of Speech verb Root Word (Etymology) A primitive root Dictionary Aids TWOT Reference: 1425 KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x The KJV translates Strong's H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x). Outline of Biblical Usage [?] to beguile, deceive (Niphal) to be beguiled (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive (Qal) utterly (infinitive) Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly. Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index) STRONGS H5377: Abbreviations † II. נָשָׁא verb only Niph., Hiph. beguile, deceive;
      2
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
       @SvenShalom  Yeah they do. It's what they are. Like Father like Son.
      1
      Reply
  • @sarahwy13 2 months ago
    Where is your humility? Many of us were humbled coming out of Sunday Christendom, and the way you are talking about this is the way they talk about us. I don't know if it's true or not, but your immediate tone and words isn't helpful nor respectful. You need some humility
    13
    Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
      Oh so I wasn’t the only person who noticed his condescending tone? 🧐
      6
      Reply
    • @AlbertScholtz 2 months ago
      119 ministries is in my opinion one of the most humbling teaching outlets on YouTube. Are they missing something in the teaching they have given? Rather scrutinise the content of the teaching than the teacher, since this is the tactic of the secular and not of the Christian.
      Reply
    • @MellovesYah 2 months ago
       @AlbertScholtz  research it for yourself. You will see they are in error in the hebrew. No where in scripture did it say the tabernacle was a squsre or rectangle. We are called to Test & Prove all things with sufficient witnesses.. that wasn't done on this video.
      5
      Reply
  • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago (edited)
    Kingdom in Context Wesblazemuzik Hanging on His Words
    12
    Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
      Winner of the chicken dinner ;-) Like Yesha'Yahu said, It's chug, not dur.👍
      4
      Reply
    • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
       @SvenShalom  AMEN!
      4
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
       @SvenShalom  Amen!
      1
      Reply
  • @MellovesYah 2 months ago (edited)
    This video doesn't seem in line with Torah. Sad
    12
    Reply
  • @carolelouday3196 2 months ago
    Test everything. The TaNaKh (Law, Prophets, Writings incl. Psalms.) is mainly written in Hebrew. Daniel is written in Aramaic. The Hellenized New Testament is in ancient and classical Greek. Context defines word meanings. If the Hebrew word equivalent for the English word radius is to be understood by the context, there would have to be a diameter and circumference ratio of a circle which is 3.14. That ratio is called pi. Pi was the ratio seen by Andrew Hoy when reading the English text. So Mr. Hoy went to Israel to study Hebrew language to get the Hebrew understanding. His knowledge is vast in regards the architecture and engineering of the tabernacle. It is far superior to any artist's limited vision of the word for sides. Mr. Hoy sees the floor print of the tabernacle as that of a compass rose: North, South, East and West and all points in between. Andrew Hoy being an engineer has knowledge that is revelatory. He has proved that the materials list is completely adequate. His knowledge of the language has enhanced his understanding of the size and function of the tabernacle. Test everything is exactly what Mr. Andrew Hoy has done in Project 314.
    12
    Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
      Agreed! Plus, the argument that some people have about the corners is irrelevant because a circle has quadrants, which is the same basic reference.
      3
      Reply
  • @JasonJrake 2 months ago
    Please have Mr Hoy on to discuss this. He has done a response and seems to have good justifications for his translation choices. An open discussion would save a dozen back and forth responses, and help us to understand both perspectives better.
    11
    Reply
  • @ruserious7713 2 months ago
    Andy Hoy is a Mechanical Engineer that went to Israel to study Hebrew. As an engineer, “Testing Everything” is exactly what engineers strive to do. By building models and testing them with real world physics, the goal to find the best model design can be proven. If we look at some of the best tabernacle evidence that we have at the moment, there is a wonderful working rectangular model in Timna Park which provides us with real empirical data. After this rectangular model was built however, we can see some major problems with this model. In order for this model to work, extra materials NOT LISTED in the Exodus texts are used. What do you do with that? This is a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2. If extra materials are needed, the end result is NOT what is described in Exodus. This is not what God described in his instructions and so therefor this design is a FAILURE. Physics proves that the rectangular design does not work. The goal of Project314 is to study the Tabernacle through the understanding of the Hebrew texts and redesign the Tabernacle using only the materials listed in Exodus. Real world physics prove that a dome is far better for water shedding and wind resistance than that of a rectangular model. When we study all of the Exodus texts in Hebrew and apply real world physics, the results appear to be a dome structure. Mr. Hoy is in the process of building a second large-scale model to further prove this theory.
    10
    Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      We appreciate the desire to apply real-world physics to biblical structures, and we agree that testing everything is a valuable approach. However, the primary issue is not what "works best" in modern engineering but what the Hebrew text actually describes. Deuteronomy 4:2 and "Extra Materials" Deuteronomy 4:2 warns against adding to or taking away from God’s commandments, not against using practical materials to support a structure. The Exodus account gives dimensions and materials but does not specify every method of assembly. If we apply this reasoning consistently, then any structure—dome or rectangle—would require some form of additional support, fasteners, or reinforcements not explicitly listed in Exodus. Does that mean all models are invalid? Clearly not. Does the Hebrew Text Support a Dome? The core issue is not engineering but the biblical language. Exodus explicitly describes a rectangular structure using the words orech (length) and rochav (width), which are used elsewhere to describe rectangular objects (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were circular, the text would not use orech and rochav—it would use the Hebrew word kav (קו, circumference), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, which describes a round object. Every known Hebrew scholar and Jewish/Christian Bible translation for thousands of years has rendered these dimensions as rectangular. If the text truly supported a dome, why does no historical Jewish or Christian interpretation reflect that? Physics vs. Biblical Description The claim that "real-world physics proves that a dome is better" is not the issue. The Bible is not a physics textbook; it is God's inspired Word. If physics alone dictated design, then we should question why the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon’s Temple, and nearly every biblical structure is described in rectangular terms. The rectangular model at Timna Park has functioned for decades. If additional supports were added for modern exhibition purposes, that does not mean the original structure was impossible—only that modern concerns (e.g., safety for tourists) led to modifications. The Purpose of the Tabernacle 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. The design God gave was functional, sacred, and symbolic—meant to foreshadow His dwelling with Israel, not necessarily optimized for modern weatherproofing.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  you can claim to appreciate real world physics all you like. But here's a news flash: the same physics and engineering with which the modern round dome was designed, fabricated, and erected was essentially the same as the ancient one. No need to pretend that just because I used CGI and CAD to do designs negates the fact that the ancients used similar methodology. Bear in mind that Moses received the instructions. But he didn't build it himself. He delegated to technically trained experts, namely Betzalel and Oheliab. You can pretend that the text will allow the rectangular model extra parts while disallowing the same courtesy to the dome model, which happens to come together without a single extra part. You cannot argue this from exegesis or from experience based on the shoebox model. If they needed to do modern modifications for "safety and tourists" to the Timna model, that inherently indicates that the ancient rectangular model was not safe. Either that or you'd have to concede that you don't know how they did it given the instructions that Moses received on Sinai. Pretending the Timna model is representative of the ancient one or the Biblical one is not only an argument from silence, but an absurd exaggeration. The Timna model is supported by massive 2 or 3" galvanized steel struts--which weren't on Moses' shopping list. The supposed complexity of the dome shaped structure doesn't negate its possibility or for that matter its practicality. Why would there need to be 20,000 Levites to erect an aesthetically and structurally inferior and less imposing shoebox model? Antinomianism Christendom often reverts to symbolism when they don't understand things in the Torah. You can't legitimately claim symbolism is correct if the boxy tent thing that you are talking about won't physically function. Types and shadows don't work on a structure that will not stand or cannot be built.
      4
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @Project314  We appreciate your engagement and the depth of thought you’ve put into this discussion. While we respect the interest in real-world physics and engineering, the core issue remains what the biblical text actually says, not what is theoretically possible. 1. The Issue is Biblical Exegesis, Not Engineering Feasibility The primary question is not whether a dome could be built, but whether the Hebrew text describes one. The words אֹרֶךְ (orech, “length”) and רֹחַב (rochav, “width”) consistently describe rectangular objects in Scripture (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were circular, we would expect the Hebrew word קו (kav, “circumference”), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, when describing Solomon’s round bronze basin. Every known Jewish and Christian Bible translation for thousands of years has rendered these terms as describing a rectangular structure. 2. The Timna Model and Additional Materials The claim that extra materials in the Timna model prove a rectangular Tabernacle was impossible is not accurate. The modern Timna model is a museum exhibit, not an ancient reconstruction—it includes modern modifications for stability and visitor safety. ALL structures—rectangular or domed—would require some form of stabilization, including a dome, which would require reinforcements not listed in Exodus. If we reject the rectangular model because of modern supports, the same logic must be applied to any proposed dome structure. 3. The Role of Betzalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:1-6) Yes, Moses delegated the building of the Tabernacle to skilled craftsmen, but they were following the instructions given by God. Nowhere in Exodus 25-27 does the text describe a dome or yurt-like structure. If these craftsmen had built something different from what God instructed, that would have been disobedience. The claim that a dome "comes together without a single extra part" assumes that a dome is the only functional interpretation of the text, which is not supported linguistically. 4. The Argument About Levites and Construction The 20,000+ Levites were not just responsible for erecting the Tabernacle. They also had priestly duties, carrying responsibilities, maintenance, and oversight (Numbers 3-4). The size of the labor force does not prove the structure was a dome—it simply reflects the logistical complexity of setting up and transporting a sacred space. A rectangular tent would not have been structurally inferior—it would have been simple, functional, and in line with God’s instructions. 5. Symbolism vs. Practicality We do not reject the physical function of the Tabernacle in favor of mere symbolism. The structure was real, but it also had deep symbolic meaning, as Hebrews 8:5 states: "They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.'" The symbolism is only valid if the physical structure was built exactly as God commanded. Again, if the Hebrew text truly described a dome, why does no ancient Jewish or Christian source interpret it that way? We are not rejecting modern engineering—we are simply pointing out that the engineering must align with the actual biblical text. If a circular interpretation requires redefining Hebrew words that have been understood consistently for thousands of years, the burden of proof is on those proposing the new model.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  sorry, but you do not respect the real world physics and engineering aspects of this exegesis or this structure. 1. Bible exegesis must not clash with laws of physics or engineering principles. You can't build things from unobtainable or pretend them into existence. You cannot cop out of your box structure problems by expecting the supernatural to intercede in keeping a structure erect. 2. The Timna model and the Areil models don't work because the traditional exegesis is a joke. This is why they need all of the extra junk added to the exhibits to make them stand. Stop pretending that the original may not have been safe enough. As is, sorry, but the dome Tabernacle does NOT require extra junk to help it stand. This is where you and I differ in both knowledge and experience and training. I've built the dome and have done calculations as an engineer. I prove its viability on paper and via calculation and in real world construction. Sorry, but you have not and you do not. 3. Based on my engineering knowledge and months and months of review of models, books, commentaries, and religious artwork, I have NEVER seen a functional variant of the rectangular shoebox tabernacle that works.... Maybe that's where we differ. Where exactly is your physical or conceptual model documented again? 4. Sure, the Levites were tasked by priests, arguably up unto the point where the kingdom was divided and the idiotic northern tribes started worshiping idols instead, and until Jeroboam discontinued their service. But we know that in the time of Moses, they weren't tasked to do nothing. Do you have any idea of how many pounds they needed to lift, and have you ever studied the logistics of hauling the shoebox model from place to place and setting it up, as far as wagons, beasts of burden, credible wilderness journey pathways, rigging, etc., is concerned? A large workforce was justified, although you seem intent on wanting to diminish that which is along the lines of one of the wonders of the ancient world. For you to say that a rectangular tent is not structurally inferior is a statement of faith, and a misappropriated one at that. Nearly every nomadic culture in the world would seem to disagree with your claim--from Indians to Eskimos. 5. We agree that the Tabernacle had deep symbolic meaning and only valid if made as commanded. But then according to the logical outworking of your conclusion, Jesus was a box, and you'd be worshiping a god-in-a-box. Oh, but they were just pretending, because it was all just symbolic, right? As for the "pattern on the mountain", take a closer look, it's referring to pattern IN the mountain... בהר, not על הר. This is but a simple case, this "on the mountain" mistranslation, that just goes to show that you don't know what you are talking about. So, if you can't parse a simple Hebrew preposition like the one for TENT or HOUSE as it is used here, why should I or anyone else take you seriously when you keep talking about having expertise in the Hebrew text? You are rejecting modern engineering, and more to the point, rejecting ANCIENT ENGINEERING that has been recorded in history but hidden in the plain texts. Consensus by cultures not literate in Hebrew is irrelevant. Traditions of the Hebrew speaking Jews were called to question when Hebrew was either a first language or at the very least, read and spoken fluently. Yet, according to 119 ministries, it's impossible for anyone (especially the religious authorities) to have been oblivious to deeper and ancient Bible truth. Well, at that rate, maybe our entire NT is a lie... because surely, the fluent Hebrew speaking Jews and Jewish scholars properly handled the every text and doctrine back in that day and age. כבד אלהים הסתר דבר וכבד מלכים חקר דבר איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת יהוה אתנו אכן הנה לשׁקר עשׂה עט שׁקר ספרים
      3
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @Project314  We appreciate your passion for this discussion and the effort you've put into studying this topic from an engineering perspective. However, while real-world physics and engineering are important considerations, they do not override the primary issue at hand: what does the biblical text actually say? 1. Biblical Exegesis and Engineering While Bible exegesis must not contradict physical reality, it must first and foremost remain faithful to what the text actually describes. The claim that a rectangular model "relies on supernatural intervention" to remain standing is unfounded. Tents, including rectangular ones, have been used by nomadic cultures for thousands of years. If a rectangular tabernacle was impossible, why would every known Jewish and Christian source over thousands of years describe it that way? 2. Timna and Ariel Models The Timna model is a modern exhibit, designed to function as a representation, not an exact reconstruction of the original. The presence of modern supports does not prove the original design was unsafe—only that modern museum displays require stability for long-term public access. A dome model would also require reinforcements, tie-downs, and materials not explicitly listed in Exodus—meaning it faces the same challenge in adhering strictly to the material list. 3. The Lack of Historical or Scholarly Support for a Dome You claim that you've never seen a functional rectangular tabernacle model—but have you found a single historical or biblical source that describes the Tabernacle as a dome? Every ancient Jewish and Christian source—including those written by fluent Hebrew speakers—understood the Tabernacle as rectangular. If your claim is that everyone throughout history has misread the text, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence from the Hebrew Bible itself that supports a circular interpretation. 4. The Role of the Levites and the Logistics of Transport The Levites' duties were not just about setting up the Tabernacle—they were also responsible for its maintenance, oversight, and religious functions (Numbers 3-4). The fact that other nomadic cultures use round tents does not mean Israel did—especially when their instructions were given directly by God in precise dimensions. If a dome was a more efficient and superior design, why wouldn’t God have simply described it that way in Exodus? 5. Symbolism and the “God-in-a-Box” Argument The symbolism of the Tabernacle does not mean we are “worshiping a God-in-a-box.” It means that God chose a specific design to represent His presence, just as He later did with the Temple. The phrase “pattern on the mountain” (תבנית המשכן בהר) does not contradict the rectangular structure. Even if we take "in the mountain" as an alternate translation, that does not change the dimensions God gave in Exodus. You claim that this is a mistranslation, but the meaning of בהר (b’har) does not change the shape of the Tabernacle—it simply describes where the instructions were given. 6. The Broader Argument Against Hebrew Scholarship You suggest that fluency in Hebrew doesn’t guarantee proper interpretation, which is true—but this applies both ways. If Hoy’s theory were correct, then fluent Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars should have recognized it centuries ago—but they didn’t. Are you saying that all Hebrew scholars and Jewish scribes for thousands of years misunderstood their own language, yet modern engineers have suddenly uncovered the truth? The New Testament is not invalidated simply because Jewish scholars missed certain messianic prophecies—their rejection of Yeshua was not due to misreading Hebrew, but to spiritual blindness (Romans 11:25). We welcome scholarly debate and testing of all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), but any claim must be rooted in what the biblical text actually states—not just in what is theoretically possible from an engineering perspective. If the Hebrew text truly described a dome, why does no historical Jewish or Christian source support that interpretation?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  Jon II, or whoever you at 119 are, please stop trying to gaslight the public. Your statement opening with the remark "real-world physics and engineering are important considerations, they do not override the primary issue at hand: what does the biblical text actually say" is gaslighting. Again, I will say that the text trumps anything than any human mind can possibly fathom. But this is not to say that we are not given enough human reasoning to sort our way through the word--otherwise, why would have have bothered to give it to us if only to cause us to fail? Consequentially, it stands to reason that there is a right and a wrong way to do things... which is something you seem to hold in lower regards as you cannot produce a working rectangular model, regardless of whatever symbolism-based spiritualized mystical interpretation you'd rather put at the pinnacle of the argument. Please, by your choice of language in implications and questions, stop pretending that you are the only one who cares about the text, and that I'm just taking creative license with it at the expense of me being as literal as humanly possible with each and every Hebrew word. You are trying to present me as a text-twisting villain that is bent on pushing physics and engineering over the text, rather than someone as seeing them as being perfectly harmonious. To your other questions and remarks: 1. Why would generations of scholars misrepresent the text? Well, we have Jeremiah 8:8, Ezekiel 22:26, Isaiah 29:13, and Proverbs 25:2 coming to mind, just to name a few. Seriously, if you are Israel's teacher that is bent on "testing everything" and can't fathom a why in this case, perhaps you might want to either reconsider your slogan or consider a different profession altogether. 2. Your point regarding the Timna and dome model is contradictory and untrue and rooted in ignorance. I've explained these points before but you persist pushing the same unsubstantiated and incorrect claims in this subject matter. Why is that? I am not aware of any technical credential that you have or evidence of the engineering principles applied to make the dome model. What makes you an expert on structures? Do you have special knowledge of wind loading, earthquake loading, snow/rain/sand loading, watersheds, etc. that uniquely qualify you to make the claims that you are making? 3. Again, logical fallacies are used in many shapes and forms. You want to hang your hat on what everybody else says and has said. But did you know that the loss of this understanding can be demonstrated textually between the time of the Hebrew Chumash and the introduction of the Greek LXX? So it's fair from this that the scholars dating back as 300 BC is had lost this knowledge. Why? Because they did not tend to every JOT and TITTLE of the Hebrew... and the Greek geeks took over. Like I said before, you are asking for evidence of scrolls that dates back to before the time of the DSS. And yes, I understand all too well that the burden of proof is on me for claiming the Tabernacle is circular. That's why I have produced products like my book, my PP presentation, my webinar series, my walk in model, and my 1:75 model kits--so folks could go verse-by-verse, line-upon-line, and precept-upon-precept. I'm not just clapping my hands together and saying "רחב = radius, ארך = diameter" and calling it one and done. 4. Yes, you are correct in that me saying that the vast majority of nomads made round dwellings, e.g., igloos, adobes, tipis, yurts, etc. is merely circumstantial evidence. But we've also got a case of Occam's Razor here. It doesn't take a brain surgeon, rocket scientist, or even an engineer to see how ineffective it is to build round. Like I said I don't know how many times now, we both agree that they received divine instructions. It just so happens that you've committed to the idea in your mind (with perhaps far more passion than I have) that the more likely solution that El Shaddai gave to Israel was retarded and remedial from a structural standpoint. There is no way to sugar coat it. Box designs are scarcely found in nature, bubbles and circles and cylinders are everywhere. Surely, if we too are made in his image, and the Tabernacle is conveying the idea of his dwelling place, why aren't you equally emphatic that we too should have perfect right angles for knees and shoulders and elbows and foreheads? The human heart is shaped far more like a sphere than a Rubik's cube. Art is curved; the human body is art. It doesn't take a block head to realize that. 5. I never said that the בהר reference negated the rectangular tent possibility. But I did indicate that it revealed that you don't know what you are talking about. You said "on the mountain", as do all of the retarded think-they-know-better translators that will bend the Hebrew prepositions and texts into a way that we think is more friendly. Leading with the beit, the literal text could either be translated as "tent mountain", and/or "in (the) mountain" or "in (a) mountain". The point is the ב preposition is IN and NOT ON or UPON or even AROUND the mountain. As for dimensions, NO, I NEVER SAID THAT the BEIT CHANGED ANY DIMENSIONS. Instead, I made the point to say that both you and the translators in this case don't have a clue what they are talking about. So again, stop it with the gaslighting. I'm not and was not using the בהר thing to speak to the problem of courtyard dimensions, even though most mountains that I've seen are more or less round at the base, especially where there is a single one. I can't think of a single square mountain base. But I digress. The point is that if you can't sniff your way through a simple preposition mistranslation instance, why should I or others take special heed of what you are pushing in your teaching that is supposedly rebutting a round dome Tabernacle? Your authority as a teacher must be rooted in both spiritual anointing as well as knowledge (Malachi 2:7) and command of the word. You should have enough experience with the original language to distinguish between ב and על before trying to stand high on your ארך and רחב soap box. 6. No, I'm not saying that all Jewish or Hebrew scholars misunderstood their own language (even though most of them did not also factor Paleo Hebrew as visionaries like Bissel, Benner, Seacons [sp?], and Ben Gigi and others have, or Edenics like Isaac Moseson has); after all, my fractional and imperfect understanding of the language comes from them and others before me. To the contrary, I personally think that some of the more reverent Jews declined to make translations, seeing it as a violation of Dt and Proverbs texts which warn about not adding to or taking away from the word of יהוה. I can't prove that theory. I admit that I can't cite a single case of that historically. But as a literalist and retentive engineer of sorts, I can't help but ponder that no add/subtract text might mean to others with similar literal appreciation for the word in its original form. So yeah, you can roll in all of the filthy English translations and commentary that you'd like to and hope that you'll somehow come out cleaner after getting up off of the ground... but for me, I've learned the hard way to never, ever seriously argue from any text other than the Hebrew. As for your concluding question pertaining to the obfuscation or understanding of this dome design, I do suspect that others in the faith may have encountered it at various points throughout the ages. Although I feel privileged to have discovered it for and by myself (ברוך השם), I don't think that I am motivated by delusions of grandeur--as you and your audience might be inclined to assume. So I am left to once again answer your question as I did before, saying "כבד אלהים הסתר דבר וכבד מלכים חקר דבר".
      1
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @Project314  Thank you so much for humbling yourself to to bother to answer . Many people had already expressed their discomfort that you were being unfairly represented . I have been very saddened in the change of direction in 119 Ministries and this pretty much seals it . I will be unsubscribing . ( Am subbed to you ) I found your statement " But did you know that the loss of this understanding can be demonstrated textually between the time of the Hebrew Chumash and the introduction of the Greek LXX? So it's fair from this that the scholars dating back as 300 BC is had lost this knowledge. Why? Because they did not tend to every JOT and TITTLE of the Hebrew... and the Greek geeks took over. " . The world drinks it's waters of knowledge out of the sewers of Hellenistic Alexandria , Egypt . God could get the Israelite's out of Egypt but He couldn't Egypt out of them . The " Church " is no different . On point 4 ,dome structures . I grew up in a construction , design and art background . I have always been interested in dome structures . I follow Nomadic Architecture on YT and shows peoples from all around the world making domed homes ( as in DOMEestic ) . Civilizations at their peak want to build high towers and the biggest dome they can . I recently caught " The Inuits build an Inuit Igloo in 2 hours " ( yes , that said TWO hours ) on Inuit Discovery . Short but mind blowing and makes you wonder is God Inuit ?
      4
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @dunoze  Thanks much for the encouragement and subscription and sentiment with respect to being misrepresented here. I don't think I've ever heard the remark with respect to sewers of Hellenistic Alexandriea, but it gave me a good chuckle. Interesting point also about DOMEstic. We also have DOMicile and DOMesticated. As for the Igloo, I saw one video produced by Canadian TV years ago. The question I would ask, though, is are the Inuit Hebrews? Too bad they eat so much unclean meat, but otherwise, the igloo comes from עגל or עגלו as Issac Moseson points out. No mistake, same goes for גר of course.
      4
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @Project314  It made me chuckle too , but my studies show it is all too true , sad . I'm sure I've seen the domestic reference in Mosenson but had caught it for myself . I recognized Eric Bissell , Jeff Benner but could not place Seacons ? . Is it perhaps Seekins , Frank Seekins ? . Saw your patience with @danhorsam2106 . 😮‍💨 PS When you got the break check the Inuit Igloo link with the cap stone . They're not Hebrews but it is natural engineering at it's best . It's this consistent dome , in all places , at all times . The NASA vision of their future presence on other " planets " or the moon is under a dome . The current demonstration of our engineering and technological ability is what they call the " Sphere" and the " Orb " ? . It is in fact a DOME and has high definition screens inside and out . The so called " Flat Earth " issue is not going away ! . We walk by faith . That our tabernacle be in order and that we build our domestic life according to The Pattern given "in " the mountain . Unless YHUH builds the house the laborers toils in vain 😀
      1
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
      Thine King Dome come , Thy will be dome , sorry done , On earth as it is in heaven . " After this this i will return And rebuild the tabernacle of David , which has fallen down : I will rebuild it's ruins , And will set it up ; SO THAT the rest of mankind may seek YHUH , Even all the Gentiles who are called by My Name , Says YHUH , who does all these things " Yacob quoting Amos at the Jerusalem Council talking about the mission to the Gentiles .
      2
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @dunoze  The Amos 9:11 verse is interesting here as we chat over 119's channel posts. Seriously, as the towers came down on 911, it is interesting to see the flip side with promise to rebuild. As for David's fallen tent, actually there it is סכה and the Tabernacle, that is the משכן or אהל מועד is actually never called סכה or Sukkah, even though you could make a good linguistic case that it is one. Sometimes that translated sukkah as "tabernacle", thus adding to the confusion. Neverthelss, I do suspect that when David had the Ark brought to Jerusalem, that he built is own Tabernacle dome to house it. David had boku gold and silver at the time and it would have been something that would have well been within his means to do so. Thanks for the King-Dome comments as well. I can only surmise that it's no mistake that the language plays out as it does. There's always a language thread to pull on, and when we pull, we'll never quite know what we'll find. Check out Edenics if you have not already.
      4
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @Project314  As this is an open platform for the Family as long as we all play nice there should no problems . There will always be issues hence the Council at Jerusalem . I think the comments sections can be the most informative . Kind of them to open the debate . My journey in brief has been , Are the 7 days 7,000 yrs , yes . Then the Sabbath , then the 7 months of the 7 Feasts aiming at and ending in The Tabernacle . Which has 7 articles . The pattern of the Tabernacle . And any Christian I talk to has not got the foggiest what I'm talking about ? 🙄 Yes , " Origin of Speeches " , very good . I also love the Paleo such as Eric Bissell's work . All these different disciples being restored for this time . Interesting that the first people to be set apart and anointed were the men building The Tabernacle . The season of the seventh month is soon upon us , we had better get our tabernacles straight , or is that round .
      2
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  build a rectangle or shut up. Only with the materials given. Wow.
      2
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  quote the verse that says it’s a rectangle please. There isn’t one. Shut up.
      1
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @williamaltman9606  Blunt , but true and true !
      1
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
      As i understand it Project 314 is so named because Andrew Hoy saw Pi in the Tabernacle pattern and informed the nature of the form , a circular base and dome In the beginning Elohim made the heavens and the earth In Hebrew the subject matter is at the end , the heavens and the earth . Pi has been encrypted in this verse . The formula is The number of letters X The product of the letters . ________________________________________________ The number of words X The product of the words . Chuck Missler among others expound on this very well . 🤔
      1
      Reply
  • @carlmathias428 2 months ago
    Did you even speak to Andrew Hoy. This is why you have lost all my respect. You know he is the one promoting this idea. Yet your don’t have the integrity to ask him. Shame on you. Your not interested in Testing all things.
    10
    Reply
  • @eliora9108 2 months ago
    You guys have gone from rational to petty over the last several years. I used to trust what you did was for the right reasons but you've continually shown,over and over,for several years now,that you are actually just about making vids just to claim to be right about petty squabbles you've had. These seems just like another one of those. You ate twisting Hoy's take on it completely,taking his theory oit of context. Even I can see that even rectangular strips can still be arranged in a dome. You claim that it cannot. His claim is not adding any other materials other than what scripture gives,which you conveniently left out. The traditional model has to add to Yahweh's instructions,other materials,for it to be built the way it is. You leave this out to try and 'win' your case,out of pettiness. I'm so tired of seeing you guys be dishonest like this,misrepresenting people just to 'win an argument' where the people you bash w your ommissions aren't even present to defent it. Get some spiritual maturity ,will ya?
    10
    Reply
    • @widepathdropout 1 month ago
      Bravo. It's really sad, isn't it? If a person is tuning into 119's channel for basic "Torah isn't done away" information, they are great. But stop there.
      3
      Reply
  • @12th_C 2 months ago
    Been keeping an eye on Andrew Hoy and Project 314 for several years now. It’s definitely an interesting concept. I have reached out to Andy in the past with questions about his hypothesis going beyond what he has covered in public. He basically told me to go read his book. I havnt gotten around to purchasing it yet.
    9
    Reply
    • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
      The House of El Shaddai: God's Dwelling Place Reconsidered
      5
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
       @12th_C  There are some great videos and if you watch the TUC reply with Andrew recorded late last week you will get more insight. I hope that’s okay helps.
      1
      Reply
    • @12th_C 2 months ago
      @ I’ve watched it along with several other videos. My biggest question for Andy is how the height is achieved and supported. He has not clearly defined that in his answers, beyond which end the curtains get connected. All of the posts are of a defined height in scripture. So what supports a 6 story structure? Is it self supporting? If so, how? When i ask him this, he basically says it’s all in the Hebrew and tells me to buy his book. I understand he has to make a living but i feel like that shouldn’t be a trade secret. It seems like a basic question. I’m happy to read more about it but if I’m going to spend 45 bucks on his book i would like him to address my question and intrigue me to read more instead of basically saying “trust me bro”
      1
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
       @12th_C  Yes I hear you; and of course it is self-supporting as his model demonstrates but I get your frustration as well. I know Andrew has spent years trying to get the information out and it is a tough situation when you are trying to obey but also have to live. Maybe this whole situation will create an opportunity to make the details underlying the discovery within scripture to become more accessible; I agree it really needs to be shared with all. I pray OHF helps Andrew find a way to make this happen.
      Reply
    • @Project314 1 month ago
       @12th_C  You do ask valid and significant questions. More so than most. And I say in response Proverbs 25:2. Whether you buy from Amazon or from P314 website, bear in mind that the book can be returned (I offer a 30 day money back guarantee for anyone dissatisfied with my explanations). As for the height and disclosure, like it or not, the balance of the exegesis can be deduced or inferred or reverse engineered from the 3D CGI (showing only the exterior) that I have posted on my website (with the visual aids you can even fumble through English translations and come to comprehend some of the details and quantities). Apart from that, bear in mind that I am not obligated to spoon feed people details--especially that which pertains to the holy things, and especially in cases where I am feeling affronted with criticism or skepticism or a sense of entitlement or in some cases omniscience. You say that "all of the posts are of a defined height in scripture". That is not remotely true. The length of the קרשים is defined as 10 cubits (which mind you I don't think are ever translated as "posts" in Scripture). But then there is also the question of עמודים and בריחם. The height of עמודים (sometimes translated as posts) in the case of the courtyard are given in Exodus 27 (which are made of copper), but this is not true for the wood ones called out in Exodus 26 where no height is given (but can be deduced from other given dimensions). Now personally, I would prefer to live in a world where everyone is willing to hunker down and test and study things out for themselves, because I think it makes for better individuals and thus a healthier community and overall society. But instead, we live in a world where people would rather watch a 20 minute video like what 119 has produced, where they get "everything tested" for them and handed to them on a platter. Consequentially, we all come to live in a world where the people who should be RIDING in the SHORT BUS are instead DRIVING the BIG BUS. Speaking of "posts", Exodus 27:9-19 only describes COPPER (or you might argue bronze / brass from translation) as being used to make posts. But in the CGI of this video, we see them using WOOD to make courtyard posts, which would seem to denote illiteracy... or at best case, diminished powers of observation. So maybe you might benefit by turning your attention and criticism toward sketchy tradition and those peddling it, along with questioning the true value of the things that you get for free--which life experience often shows to be more of a burden than a blessing. In order to make the Tabernacle, all of Israel provided two "sanctuary shekels". This amount happens to correspond to what it costs for anyone to buy my book, albeit most of that silver doesn't make its way to my pockets. Sometimes in life, we get what we pay for; for it's true that where our treasure is, our heart will be also. You say that you "understand he has to make a living but... ____________" So, in the case of the money back guarantee, I'll say "trust me bro", but in the matter of the exegesis, I'll say, "test me bro"--but test them too. These shoebox advocates don't stand a chance at defending their position or refuting that which is authentic revelation. The question I leave for you: What do YOU value, and do you consider yourself to be a peasant or a king?
      Reply
  • @barefootyeti9441 2 months ago
    Your main premise in the beginning being dimensions dictate a rectangle was discussed on Andrews website and book, the scriptures say a length and width, not a shape.
    9
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      well, if the north and south sides are the same length and the east and west sides are the same length what shape does that make?
      5
      Reply
    • @mistyfranklin853 2 months ago
      Tabernacle and temple could be different for a reason. It has been postulated Solomon made the temple after the temples around him in pagan cultures
      Reply
  • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
    As i read through these comments I am seeing a consistent trend. Those who take the rectangular conclusion are using Yahs actual words. Those taking the circle conclusion are consistently praising a man and his logic. Satan roams around ....seeking who he may devoir.
    9
    Reply
    • @HAChrist 2 months ago
      I've been noticing this pattern for the last decade, and it never changes. It shocking how true your statement is.
      1
      Reply
    • @jeanene72 2 months ago
      But the actual words giving the amount of materials used, do not match the rectangular model.
      4
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @jeanene72  How much material was used and what chap and verse are you using to arrive at that statement?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      @danhorsam2106, did you know that there are no sacred name Bibles translated into English? Do you know how/why that is? Because once you translate the Bible into English, you fail to conform to instructions of Deuteronomy, namely, "do not add to or subtract from". Sorry, but like it or not, you can't be thumping an English Bible while feeling entitled to divine results. I am going back to the Hebrew for my Exegesis. Your trust in translations as being inspired word is dangerous.
      4
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @Project314 My translation is from the original Hebrew.
      2
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  great, I'm glad to hear that you are using the proper base texts. Then you'll know what נגבה ותימנה means.
      1
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
       @Project314  No I don't know what it means. 2 questions Not sure the point you are making, perhaps saying the Strong's translation of the original Hebrew is not correct? Or do you believe Strong's is correct? My second question, do we agree that the curtains themselves were rectangular?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  Thank you for sharing. The point I'm making is this: you don't know what "Yah's actual words" are because you are not capable of reading Hebrew. Yet with the same keyboard you are professing that those who aren't thinking it was rectangular are not using "Yah's actual words". Do you see the problem in making the claim you are, and why your credibility is suspect based upon the claim?
      2
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @Project314  "ARE THEY USING YAHS ACTUAL WORDS" Can you give me a reasonable explanation why Strong's is not reliable in their translation of the word used? Length. = Orech Breath. = rochav
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      Can you also address the question I asked earlier. Are we in agreement curtains are all rectangular shapes? Both sets of curtains.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  To which Strong's entries are you referring? Maybe you can help me out more... To which Strong's entries was 119 referring to?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  The sizes of the curtains of Exodus 26:1-6 and 7-13 are both stated. Yes, these curtains have width and length extremity measurements. The more important question, though, which Jon II is neglecting, is at/upon which edge(s) or end(s) are these curtains connected, and how are the connected, and what are they connected to? Just because these measurements are given, bear in mind that it doesn't make them rectangular. They are actually not rectangular, as the curtains are described as having blue ללאת. There are other things the text leaves us (and with enough information) to figure out, such as the thickness. Moreover, the installed orientation is given (to which Jon II pays indifference to in his models), and the interconnection detail is likewise something that he is either indifferent of or oblivious to. Do any of those details strike you as relevant, or are you going to start barking up the exact same רחב and ארך tree that Jon II is barking up?
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @Project314  Strong's Concordance is universally accepted as a reliable translator of Hebrew and Greek. Whatever the edition is can you tell me why not a reliable source for Hebrew language? Strong's translates each curtain as a rectangle. This is why I've been asking you are we agreeing with that?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  What you are saying is not accurate. Strong's concordance I believe to be an excellent source, but it is not all encompassing, and it does take some discernment and Hebrew language familiarity in order to best navigate it. There is a lot we can learn in a supplementary sense from the standpoint of both Edenics and Paleo Hebrew. To say Strong's is "universally accepted" isn't altogether true. Some of their mappings and vocabulary splits are arbitrary and seemingly based in nikkud variance, which the Rabbis even credit themselves to be a matter of oral tradition. Ironically, despite inclusion of nikkud, Jews don't use Strongs' stuff in their circles (pun intended) as far as I know... probably because as I understand, Strong was a methodist, and the Jews really don't like to use Christian source materials, even though it had roots that were more compatible with Jewish interests perhaps about five centuries prior. As for Strong's "edition", I have no idea as I understand the itemized mapping vocab work was done well over a century ago. Moreover, some are big fans Gesenius' work, which I have never appreciated and have found to be verbose. In any case, to answer your question, I have no problem with Strong's in general, but it is imperfect and can be mishandled like anything else. You can use a school bus to do mass murder, that that's not to say that just because I like school busses that I'm then condoning mass murder. Do you understand? Tools are for use, not for abuse. A tool can only be as good as the craftsman that wields it. But you still have not answered either of my questions pertaining to the Strong's content (i.e., the absent references).
      1
      Reply
    • @praiseYAHalways 2 months ago
       @Project314  what 'Hebrew' are you going back to? Also, and this is an honest question- did you look into the Greek translations (LXX etc...) of the OT when you were designing the dome version? If so were there any differences?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @praiseYAHalways  yes, good question. I both looked myself and called on two Greek guys to look over my EEE (Exodus Engineering Exegesis) drawings at an earlier date. While they didn't find anything that I had not, I ended up finding an omission that showed evidence that the LXX translator had already lost the understanding that is presently captured in the Masoretic text. I know that there are a handful of people out there that are skeptical of and haters of the Masorites/Masoretic text, but I use it without apology knowing full well that it has been meticulously maintained throughout history given 1) Bible codes, and 2) the Jots and Tittles remark of Matthew. Bible codes are a CRC quality control measure of sorts, suggesting that in most cases it would be impossible to insert a single letter haphazardly while keeping the supernatural underlying code in tact. The yud and vav swaps in various places don't concern me. Moreover, the Paleo Hebrew reveals things at layers that the Greek LXX will not.
      2
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  no, Strong's doesn't translate a curtain as a rectangle. You are just saying that following too many sips of the119 Kool Aid. This is why I asked you specifically which Strong's term you and your 119 folks are referring to. The didn't identify specifics there, and neither are you. You guys are just in bed together making claims you can't substantiate or even reference via concordance. You can't even tell me what נגבה ותימנה means and now you're trying to pose as someone speaking with subject matter expertise. Sorry, you are failing. If you can show me where "Strong's translates each curtain as a rectangle", maybe we could go somewhere from there. But what you are saying doesn't make sense on two or three levels.
      1
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @Project314  I need you to refrain from comments as "drinking the Kool-Aid. " Let's stick to substance.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      The original Hebrew text States the curtains 7 times longer than they were wide. Correct?
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @Project314  the instructions were to have 50 rings join 2 curtains together. Can you please tell me how 50 rings are able to join two circled curtains? By the way that's my own question which 119 did not ask.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      I have another one in my own questions. Can you tell me why chapter 26 vs 23 & 24 speak of 'corners." How does circled curtains have corners?
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @Project314  "STRONG'S Doesn't TRANSLATE CURTAINS BEING RECTANGLE" l-Strongs doesn't translate them being circles either. 2- What it does say is they were 4x longer than they were wide and they had corners.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @Project314  'I DONT KNOW WHAT YAH SAID BECAUSE I DONT KNOW HEBREW" So, you know Hebrew. So I am asking you. Did Yah say the curtains were four times longer than they were wide? Or did He say they were circular? You know Hebrew..
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  yes, I can, but no, I won't here and now. I am working on a video because I know that my simple answer won't satisfy people that have limited or no understanding of Hebrew.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  to which curtains do you refer? Do you mean יריעת or מסך or פרכת? I can't answer your question unless you give me some specifics.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  no. A multiplier is never given. The first set of curtains mentioned in Exodus 26:1-6 are 4 wide by 28 long. Yes, it works out to be a 7 to 1 ratio or 7 times longer, but no, the Hebrew text never uses the 7x reference. You need to stop being so sloppy in your claims and citations and questions.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  that is a good question. I cover it in detail in my book. But the bigger question is how all of the 50 ללאת connect with each other. But ללאת are not referred to as "rings" typically, even though you see grommet holes in the curtains of 119's entrance curtain in their CGI cartoon.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  yes, because the translators are expecting right angles. מקצעת is what is referred to in the Hebrew. It alludes to a segmented circle if you understand how to read and interpret the roots.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  I never translated them as circles. Never once. This is what happens when you listen to 119 content. They wander off debunking things that I didn't even say, and in the meanwhile people who listen are ultimately ill equipped to understand what it is that I'm trying to describe and explain in the first place. It's a classic case of obfuscation and misdirection. As for the 4x longer reference, I have no clue as to what you are even talking about here.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  I have no idea where the "circular curtains" concept comes about. They are more like rectangular pieces that are arranged in a circular fashion. Instead of just taking 119's word for it, why don't you stop wasting my time and yours and go study my content on youtube for yourself? Then come back when the 119 poison pill representation of the round Tabernacle isn't messing with your emotions and mental faculty.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @Project314  Stop with the personal. The point is a fabric that is 7x longer than it is wide is a oblong shape.There is no such thing as a oblong circle.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
       @Project314  All curtains in Chap 26 are oblong. 7x longer then they are wide. There is no such thing as an Oblong Circle. Now I am repeating myself and you are as well. So, we will call it a day and you can go on believing in your oblong circles.
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
      Clearly you don't know our language - Directly from the description of the tabernacle. sabib or sebibah: Around, surrounding, circuit, vicinity, environment Original Word: סָבִיב Part of Speech: substantive; adverb; preposition; substantive; adverb accusative; preposition; substantive; preposition Transliteration: cabiyb Pronunciation: sah-BEEV or seh-bee-BAH Phonetic Spelling: (saw-beeb') Definition: Around, surrounding, circuit, a round vicinity, environment Meaning: a circle, neighbour, environs, around Please have a seat.
      1
      Reply
  • @JerryMorris 2 months ago
    This was terrible I’d stick to what you understand for your sake
    9
    Reply
  • @Project314 2 months ago
    Was God's Tabernacle a Circle? Absolutely not. I would never say that. But I would say that the courtyard was circular. After all, a circle is nothing more than a two-dimensional geometric shape, i.e., a round plane figure. As it is a three dimensional construct, I'd say that the courtyard is more like a cylindrical shell.
    9
    Reply
    • @davidqatan 2 months ago
      Did you know the ark has precedent in Egypt? See Dr. David Falk’s book on the topic. “Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context”
      Reply
    • @WindowWorldscapes 2 months ago
      @Project314 You're playing word games. You admit it is circular from a top-down view but then try to sidestep by calling it a "cylindrical shell." A cylinder still has a circular base, which means from a blueprint perspective—the very way we measure layouts—it’s a circle. No matter how you spin it, if the floor plan is a circle, then the structure is fundamentally circular. Trying to swap terms doesn’t change the geometry.
      2
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @WindowWorldscapes  News flash: This entire video is rooted in word games. Obviously 119 doesn't like the way that I handle words... so I just thought it was ironic (and even a bit funny) that the title is a linguistic contradiction of sorts. Yet instead of dealing with this problem, you'd rather single me out for making a lighthearted and literal comment while ignoring the broken title problem. Interesting.
      5
      Reply
    • @WindowWorldscapes 2 months ago
       @Project314  😂
      2
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
       @WindowWorldscapes  🙄
      1
      Reply
  • @advex4428 2 months ago
    The temple, as the tabernacle, both are patterned to picture something in us and in heaven. So, since we know the temple was not round, I would also deduct that the tabernacle was not of a different shape.
    8
    Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      But, the round Tabernacle is literally anatonomically aligned to us. Please read Andrew's research, it is so wrong he wasn't given a voice here, and people are making judgments based on content that he wasn't able to explain. How is that Torah?
      5
      Reply
    • @advex4428 2 months ago
      @kimgillham321  I agree he should be heard. As I understand the 119 crew did a good analysis of his work. You cannot read or watch everything. But maybe you could post a quick overview of the bible verses that prove that the tabernacle was round, and verses that explain why it has a different shape from the temple, while both contain a depiction of the human body. Shalom!
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @advex4428  instead of spouting off a few verses to answer your question, instead I'd like to share a saying that I learned while working as an engineer. It goes like this: GOOD, CHEAP, QUICK: pick TWO. What does this mean? If it's good and cheap, it won't be quick; if it's good and quick, it won't be cheap,; and if it's quick and cheap, it won't be good. What you've accepted is ultimately quick and cheap.. and per your expressed expectation in the post, you are still on the path for something quick. If you aren't willing to invest, basically, you'll never get anything that's truly good in this world. For where your treasure is, your heart will be also.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @advex4428  it would have been nice to crank out a 19 minute video proving why it's round and not rectangular, but seeing that my response was ultimately in response to a personal attack, I had to be more thorough. I do regret that my video went over 2 horus, but 119 was so busy gaslighting their audience in their video that I ultimately felt responsible to expound on many points--most of which they might not even be aware of in defense of my position and in defense of what the Scriptures say. In other words, if 119 wasn't so effective in bearing false witness and pumping out so much dogma and propaganda in such a short period of time, maybe my rebuttal video would have been much shorter.
      2
      Reply
    • @advex4428 2 months ago
      @Project314  2 hours 35, huh? I'll be sure to watch it soon, sir! Blessings
      1
      Reply
  • @reveriestandard 2 months ago
    are there any full scale models of the tabernacle that don't use additional materials and are free standing? I have been told that several of them use rebar shoved into the ground to hold them up (obviously not available in moses' time) and others add more materials than are described in the bible. I'm not saying the tabernacle is round, but if it is a rectangle, how is it that no one can make a real full scale model using only the materials listed in the bible? Until someone can actually build one with no extra materials the jury is still out on this one.
    8
    Reply
    • @Nachalaheternal 2 months ago
      No there is not, the only tabernacle model using the correct number and descriptions of the materials used is the domed tabernacle model. It can't be done without addition for a rectangle tabernacle or the model could not support itself. I think that alone says a lot.
      7
      Reply
    • @reveriestandard 2 months ago
       @Nachalaheternal  agreed
      2
      Reply
  • @wesmuntz8797 2 months ago
    Just wondering about New Jerusalem as described in Rev 21:16. I have been taught exclusively that this is an enormous cube, however, is it possible that, according to the text, is something more like a pyramid (foursquare base with an equal height)? I ask this on the basis of the enemy having a history of presenting counterfeits.
    7
    Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      Im thinking how the snake tempted EVE into thinking something other than what Yah said. Yah said it will be like a cube,Period.
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      The idea of "foursquare" as translated elsewhere would seem to best be translated in a number of places as "quartered", or even four legged.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
       @wesmuntz8797  Think about Heaven coming down shape as a cube. Given the measurements of the Holy of Holies inside the Tabernacle was a perfect cube measuring 20 cubits on all sides.
      Reply
  • @joannaencarnacion544 2 months ago
    SHABBAT SHALOM FROM NYC, DEAR 119 MINISTRY. ALWAYS BLESSED BY YOUR TEACHINGS.
    7
    Reply
  • @karenbearden6198 2 months ago
    I'm inclined to believe it's a strong possibility. Keeping an open mind about the subject, I look forward to the presentation. Thanks for looking into it.
    7
    Reply
  • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago (edited)
    wait, before we go down this road, do you take day two of creation literal or no?
    7
    Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
      Ding Ding Ding!
      5
      Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
      Day 2 AND the supporting 200+ scripture about how the earth is made… 😊
      3
      Reply
  • @carlmathias428 2 months ago
    It is close to evil speaking to name a man who holds to this position. The whole video is about Hoy. So why don’t you do the right thing by at least have a conversation with him, rather then MISREPRESENT HIM
    7
    Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
      Just scroll down two comments in Sort by Newest first to @ruserious7713 and Andrew Hoy ( Project314 ) pulls them up proper ! . I like many in the comments felt that he had been misrepresented . He feels very much that they have and are gas lighting . He gives a very good response , better than they deserve . Well worth a read .
      2
      Reply
  • @kimgillham321 2 months ago (edited)
    Oh my it just came to me; probably based on many comments below so thank you to those people. This teaching pushes rectangle when the word wasn’t even used. YET 119 totally ignores “circle of the earth” despite it being used in Isaiah 40:22, which states that OHF "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth," in reference to our flat stationary HaAratz. Not sphere. That is very selective and clearly intentional. I’m wondering if OHF knew this would happen and has His hand in this to pull the veil from those He wants to see. Just as the jab woke many of us up to FE and Him, I think this is going to wake people up to the true Tabernacle and then biblical cosmology. Rev 1:7 supports FE because all those who pierced him saw him coming in the clouds. Only on a FE and the event had to have happened back when those people were still alive. This world has been full of deception (nasa=beguiled) so of course we must question traditional interpretations. Thank you for this video because it is so wrong it is going to help wake many up.
    7
    Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
      As I study deeper into this I find the early church did not except the pagan ball earth either . I keep finding early Christian writings , especially from Antioch that identified the Tabernacle in the Wildness with the Tabernacle of Creation with Yahusha ( Jesus ) as the Melchizedek priest over the earth as in Hebrew 8 : 1 , 2 . The commission at the Jerusalem council was to restore the Tabernacle of David . We are learning what that Tabernacle is . And yes of course The Father knew this would happen . The wisdom of God is foolishness to man . Ancient man worshiped the sun , moon and stars so God said He would turn ( roll , babble ) them over to a delusion . 6a6el 6alls . Their atoms , ball earth and their virus's are all theoretical and unproven . As I check back through the history this issue has never gone away . There is nothing new under the sun . God's Word has been challenged since the Garden . " Did God really say .... " . Yes He did , end of . Let God be true and every man a liar !
      6
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      @ Yes 🙌🏽 If the firmament is the tabernacle of the earth- it simply cannot be rectangular. Further- OHF gave us the rainbow- not just a sign of his covenant also, as his incredible and intelligent design supports, the rainbow is yet another proof of living under a dome. He is so amazing! We are so blessed.
      4
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @kimgillham321  I watched an incredible double rainbow a few years ago after fellowship with a brother . It was the clearest we'd seen . In between the two bows was a gap . That gap I believe is the firmament . I have come to believe that all rainbows are double rainbows but nut always apparent . Also recently it has been noted that the rainbows way to the North are very full and rounded but as you go south especially past the equator and nearer the southern antarctic it's low and nearly flat ! . Also we can learn about the Tabernacle in the Feasts where we are commanded to build our tabernacle in the seventh Feast of the seventh month . These patterns from Genesis 1 just keep building and repeating . Shabbat shalom ! .
      2
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago (edited)
       @dunoze  yes!! And wow- a double!!!! I was recently at the equator and the rainbow was a circle- I have no idea what that means but it is what happened. Normally I’m in Australia and I can report, the earth here is stationery and we are not upside down. Aircraft do not change orientation when we visit the north. The rainbow is such a perfect mark of covenant - it tells a story of our Earth. Not the animated one, the real one.
      4
      Reply
  • @David-ps1rz 2 months ago
    No.
    6
    Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      For he who answers a matter before listening, it is a shame and a folly.
      1
      Reply
  • @nancylynn4199 2 months ago
    Thank you for this teaching. Bible based teaching. We will not be fooled. Thank you 119. For upholding Hebrew Scriptures. Blessings
    6
    Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
      Clearly you don't know our language - Directly from the description of the tabernacle. sabib or sebibah: Around, surrounding, circuit, vicinity, environment Original Word: סָבִיב Part of Speech: substantive; adverb; preposition; substantive; adverb accusative; preposition; substantive; preposition Transliteration: cabiyb Pronunciation: sah-BEEV or seh-bee-BAH Phonetic Spelling: (saw-beeb') Definition: Around, surrounding, circuit, a round vicinity, environment Meaning: a circle, neighbour, environs, around Please have a seat.
      3
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 1 month ago
       @SvenShalom  🙏👊
      Reply
  • @HAChrist 2 months ago
    Excellent job 119 ministries, you out did yourself with a great explanation. I haven't watched in a while, but this is one of your best ones. Man's logic desires the circus tent 🙂
    6
    Reply
    • @SvenShalom 2 months ago
      🙄
      2
      Reply
    • @alisonmontana8895 2 months ago
      Obviously just the opposite. He wasn't honest about the Hebrew words that mean round, sabib is all over the explanation of the tabernacle.
      6
      Reply
    • @cassiesue2 2 months ago
      Wow, seriously??? This was one of their best videos??? It was actually pretty disgraceful and totally missed the mark. I can tell you've probably never even checked out Andy Hoys evidence. They also misrepresented alot of his teachings.
      4
      Reply
    • @HAChrist 2 months ago (edited)
       @cassiesue2  I've watched two videos, and neither one addressed my questions. I don't have 10 hours of time, or desire buy his videos and books. I already have several dozen books that I need to read first. Also, the circus tent is massive. It makes no biblical sense to have such a large structure for a small Levite family to serve in each week. Have you considered the size of timber it would require supporting a 60 feet ceiling? That would be an engineering marvel for the desert dwellers. In today's technology, we use metal beams to handle the weight and stresses of wind. And it takes heavy equipment to setup. His design is impossible and it makes a good fairytale for children.
      1
      Reply
    • @alisonmontana8895 2 months ago
      @cassiesue2 I'm pretty sure that was a canned comment, I'm sure there are the fake positive responses. No one could think a round table looks like a barrel on its side, ridiculous AI interpretation.
      3
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @HAChrist  I have developed a lifting procedure for a six story dome that uses no cranes and uses little more than ropes and wheels. I have actually done this very procedure in real life on a 1/8th scale model. So, before calling something a "fairy tale", maybe you'd best do a little learning and stop waste your time with 15 minute soundbite videos, which you do seem to have time for. If you keep fishing from shallow ponds you will only catch little fish.
      4
      Reply
    • @HAChrist 2 months ago
       @Project314  Then put your money where your mouth is and at least build the frame for a 6th story dome, to see how time consuming this project would be, and how impractical it would be for Israel as they sojourned in the desert. As I said before, people love stories, rather than truth. And after all this time, no one is willing to replicate it even yourself, because deep down inside, you know you are purporting fraud, and an actual model would only expose this nonsense. Cheers.
      Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
      Wow. You're an embarrassment to yourself, whether you realize it or not. What a bizarre comment. On this of all videos. I'm a 119 fan normally or I wouldn't be here. But they have Seriously blown it a few times in recent years, and this is one of the worst, and here you are calling it one of the best? "Out did themselves"? They sure did, but not the way you meant. Disturbing.
      3
      Reply
    • @HAChrist 2 months ago
       @Nat_Sarim777  You are carnal, under the agency of Sin and Death, and you have the wherewithal to rebuke me, over an ancient structure that physically has no relevance to the Besorah which helps the poor, widow, and orphan. And I'm an embarrassment because I do the latter, and my belief about a structure is different than yourself? It's time for you to return to the cross on your knees, and repent. You are not even on the milk.
      Reply
    • @HAChrist 2 months ago
      @ 119 provide a sound and logical explanation. I haven't embarrassed myself but only in your eyes, but not in Elohim's. Why don't you remove the plank in your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck out of your brother's eye. You hypocrite!
      Reply
  • @brendalehr444 2 months ago
    Your teachings has helped me grow in Yeshuas teachings. Thank you for your guidance. 🙏🙏
    6
    Reply
  • @alisonmontana8895 2 months ago (edited)
    You'd better look at the words 'round about.' It is all over the description of the Ark, the table of shewbread, and the altar. Suggesting that Andy isn't 'honest' shows that you don't know him personally, I do, and that was uncalled for.
    6
    Reply
  • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
    Notice in Exodus 27:1 it specifically states "square", but it doesn't when referring to the Tabernacle. Why do you think that is?
    6
    Reply
  • @hadassahdelafuente4968 2 months ago
    And flat, please
    5
    Reply
  • @davem163 2 months ago
    Why then, do materials use to replicate a rectangle version have to be added to? The text demands that you do not add to or take away from? You have lost credibility with me. Unsubscribing
    5
    Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
      We appreciate the desire to apply real-world physics to biblical structures, and we agree that testing everything is a valuable approach. However, the primary issue is not what "works best" in modern engineering but what the Hebrew text actually describes. Deuteronomy 4:2 and "Extra Materials" Deuteronomy 4:2 warns against adding to or taking away from God’s commandments, not against using practical materials to support a structure. The Exodus account gives dimensions and materials but does not specify every method of assembly. If we apply this reasoning consistently, then any structure—dome or rectangle—would require some form of additional support, fasteners, or reinforcements not explicitly listed in Exodus. Does that mean all models are invalid? Clearly not. Does the Hebrew Text Support a Dome? The core issue is not engineering but the biblical language. Exodus explicitly describes a rectangular structure using the words orech (length) and rochav (width), which are used elsewhere to describe rectangular objects (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were circular, the text would not use orech and rochav—it would use the Hebrew word kav (קו, circumference), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, which describes a round object. Every known Hebrew scholar and Jewish/Christian Bible translation for thousands of years has rendered these dimensions as rectangular. If the text truly supported a dome, why does no historical Jewish or Christian interpretation reflect that? Physics vs. Biblical Description The claim that "real-world physics proves that a dome is better" is not the issue. The Bible is not a physics textbook; it is God's inspired Word. If physics alone dictated design, then we should question why the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon’s Temple, and nearly every biblical structure is described in rectangular terms. The rectangular model at Timna Park has functioned for decades. If additional supports were added for modern exhibition purposes, that does not mean the original structure was impossible—only that modern concerns (e.g., safety for tourists) led to modifications. The Purpose of the Tabernacle 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. The design God gave was functional, sacred, and symbolic—meant to foreshadow His dwelling with Israel, not necessarily optimized for modern weatherproofing. We respect Mr. Hoy's efforts in exploring this topic, but real-world physics does not override clear biblical descriptions. If the Hebrew text actually supported a dome, we would expect to see kav (circumference) instead of orech (length) and rochav (width)—yet we do not.We appreciate the desire to apply real-world physics to biblical structures, and we agree that testing everything is a valuable approach. However, the primary issue is not what "works best" in modern engineering but what the Hebrew text actually describes. Deuteronomy 4:2 and "Extra Materials" Deuteronomy 4:2 warns against adding to or taking away from God’s commandments, not against using practical materials to support a structure. The Exodus account gives dimensions and materials but does not specify every method of assembly. If we apply this reasoning consistently, then any structure—dome or rectangle—would require some form of additional support, fasteners, or reinforcements not explicitly listed in Exodus. Does that mean all models are invalid? Clearly not. Does the Hebrew Text Support a Dome? The core issue is not engineering but the biblical language. Exodus explicitly describes a rectangular structure using the words orech (length) and rochav (width), which are used elsewhere to describe rectangular objects (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were circular, the text would not use orech and rochav—it would use the Hebrew word kav (קו, circumference), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23, which describes a round object. Every known Hebrew scholar and Jewish/Christian Bible translation for thousands of years has rendered these dimensions as rectangular. If the text truly supported a dome, why does no historical Jewish or Christian interpretation reflect that? Physics vs. Biblical Description The claim that "real-world physics proves that a dome is better" is not the issue. The Bible is not a physics textbook; it is God's inspired Word. If physics alone dictated design, then we should question why the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon’s Temple, and nearly every biblical structure is described in rectangular terms. The rectangular model at Timna Park has functioned for decades. If additional supports were added for modern exhibition purposes, that does not mean the original structure was impossible—only that modern concerns (e.g., safety for tourists) led to modifications. The Purpose of the Tabernacle 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. The design God gave was functional, sacred, and symbolic—meant to foreshadow His dwelling with Israel, not necessarily optimized for modern weatherproofing. We respect Mr. Hoy's efforts in exploring this topic, but real-world physics does not override clear biblical descriptions. If the Hebrew text actually supported a dome, we would expect to see kav (circumference) instead of orech (length) and rochav (width)—yet we do not.
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  sorry, but if you really respected my efforts in exploring this topic, you would hold yourself to the same standard and put your money where your mouth is and BUILD a physical model instead of trying to explain how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
      1
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @Project314  We appreciate your passion for this discussion, and we certainly respect your dedication to exploring this topic. However, the core issue is not about physically building a model—it’s about whether the Hebrew text actually describes a dome or a rectangle. 1. The Issue is Biblical Exegesis, Not Physical Construction The question of whether the Tabernacle was a dome or a rectangle is not a matter of engineering feasibility; it is a matter of what the biblical text says. The Hebrew words orech (length) and rochav (width), used to describe the Tabernacle, consistently describe rectangular objects throughout Scripture (Exodus 25:10, 27:18). If the Tabernacle were meant to be circular, the text would use "kav" (קו, circumference), as seen in 1 Kings 7:23 when describing a round object—but it doesn’t. The burden of proof is on those claiming the traditional understanding of these words is incorrect. 2. Why a Physical Model is Not Necessary to Prove the Biblical Text The truth of Scripture is not determined by physical reconstructions, but by carefully examining the inspired text. By this logic, every doctrinal discussion would require physically building something—but we don’t need to reconstruct Solomon’s Temple or Noah’s Ark to understand their dimensions. If physical models alone determined truth, then the fact that the Timna Park Tabernacle model has existed for decades would "prove" the rectangular model correct—which we assume you would not accept as conclusive proof. 3. Testing Everything: Holding Theories to the Same Standard If we are expected to build a model, then the same standard should apply to Hoy’s circular theory—a fully functional, mobile, easily transportable, and historically verified dome model that matches the Hebrew text would be required. Simply asserting that something "works better" in engineering does not mean it is what the Bible describes. 4. Staying Focused on Scripture This discussion is not about who can build the best replica; it is about what God actually commanded in His Word. We are open to serious discussion about the Hebrew text and its meaning, but dismissing biblical exegesis as "angels on the head of a pin" is not a valid counterargument.
      1
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
       @119Ministries got ya. Mr. Hoy ONLY used what was given. No extras. You just shot yourself in the foot again. Unbelievable
      2
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
       @119Ministries  when you can build the rectangle out of the material given only. Come back and give it another shot. Till then you lose.
      3
      Reply
  • @tom_olofsson 2 months ago
    Very well researched and presented. Thanks for being sensitive to those who may have been mislead.
    5
    Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      It would be more honourable if they had invited Andrew on to discuss this topic and give him his Torah rights of reply. I'm deeply disappointed that law was ignored in this way and hope and pray @119Ministries sees this mistake and atones for it and puts it right, as soon as possible.
      3
      Reply
    • @tom_olofsson 2 months ago
       @kimgillham321  So, in order to voice their interpretation they need to set it up as a debate? I disagree.
      Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
       @tom_olofsson  You can disagree as we have been given free will that doesn’t change the reality law is law. Plus, if we want to find the truth then we must work together and not put down those with other discoveries, rather we learn far more by asking questions, and processing the alternatives responses. This by definition of a discussion requires at least two parties.
      1
      Reply
    • @tom_olofsson 1 month ago
      @ And you know Andrew was not invited?
      Reply
  • @rwallis1985 2 months ago
    Unfortunately 119 Ministries is way too late to this game.
    4
    Reply
  • @WindowWorldscapes 2 months ago
    Fantastic teaching. No need to get into the weeds. The Hebrew language alone dismantles this theory.
    4
    Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
      Clearly you don't know our language - Directly from the description of the tabernacle. sabib or sebibah: Around, surrounding, circuit, vicinity, environment Original Word: סָבִיב Part of Speech: substantive; adverb; preposition; substantive; adverb accusative; preposition; substantive; preposition Transliteration: cabiyb Pronunciation: sah-BEEV or seh-bee-BAH Phonetic Spelling: (saw-beeb') Definition: Around, surrounding, circuit, a round vicinity, environment Meaning: a circle, neighbour, environs, around Please have a seat.
      1
      Reply
  • @Suvituuli777 2 months ago
    You have not done your due diligence on this issue. Thorough study on Hebrew words in their context will prove Andrew Hoy's model right. I have studied those words and have come to the conclusion that Yah is the Utmost Engineer and Architect - He hid secrets in this as well. Traditions are inherited from our forefathers who have inherited lies. Hebrew aside - you should apologize to Andrew for dragging his name into this. This is not the way of Torah!
    4
    Reply
  • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
    Exodus 25:25 HEB: מִסְגֶּ֛רֶת טֹ֖פַח סָבִ֑יב וְעָשִׂ֧יתָ זֵר־ NAS: of a handbreadth around [it]; and you shall make KJV: of an hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make INT: A rim of a handbreadth around shall make border Exodus 25:25 HEB: זָהָ֛ב לְמִסְגַּרְתּ֖וֹ סָבִֽיב׃ NAS: border for the rim around it. KJV: to the border thereof round about. INT: A gold the rim around Exodus 27:17 HEB: עַמּוּדֵ֨י הֶֽחָצֵ֤ר סָבִיב֙ מְחֻשָּׁקִ֣ים כֶּ֔סֶף NAS: the pillars around the court KJV: All the pillars round about the court INT: the pillars the court around shall be furnished silver Strong's Lexicon sabib or sebibah: Around, surrounding, circuit, vicinity, environment Original Word: סָבִיב Part of Speech: substantive; adverb; preposition; substantive; adverb accusative; preposition; substantive; preposition Transliteration: cabiyb Pronunciation: sah-BEEV or seh-bee-BAH Phonetic Spelling: (saw-beeb') Definition: Around, surrounding, circuit, vicinity, environment Meaning: a circle, neighbour, environs, around Word Origin: Derived from the root סָבַב (sabab), meaning "to go around" or "to surround." Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - G2945 (kuklo): Meaning "circle" or "around," used in similar contexts in the New Testament to describe encircling or surrounding. Usage: The Hebrew words סָבִיב (sabib) and סְבִיבָה (sebibah) are used to describe something that is around or encircling an object or area. They can refer to physical surroundings, such as the area around a city or a camp, or metaphorically to describe influence or presence. These terms are often used in the context of God's protection or judgment, as well as in descriptions of geographical locations.
    4
    Reply
  • @Believefor 2 months ago
    Awesome
    3
    Reply
  • @yayaq1779 2 months ago
    And let us not forget family Yah placed the tribes around it in particular formation ,and we all know ,Yah is perfect in all His ways 🙌
    3
    Reply
    • @kimgillham321 2 months ago
      Yes, and around (sabib) means a circle with no head. Further a circle circumference is a more useful and accommodating shape.
      5
      Reply
    • @MellovesYah 2 months ago
       @kimgillham321  yes
      2
      Reply
  • @naakewoinmontana1249 2 months ago
    Excellent teaching
    3
    Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
      Not even close. Your comment shows your understanding of this topic.
      3
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
      No.
      3
      Reply
  • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
    7 Problems with a Circled Tabernacle. 1-The original Hebrew words, Orech and rochav mean length and width of the curtains not diameter and circumference of the curtains. Scripture is very clear that the curtains were elongated strips 7x longer than they were wide. Scripture does not describe circled patterned curtains. 2-Orech and rochav are used to describe the rectangular shape of the Arc of the Covenant, the Table of Showbread and framing of the Tabernacle itself. 3-There are at least 7 other instances 119 documents the words “Orech and rochav" are used to describe rectangular shapes. 4-the Hebrew word “agol" which means circle, is not found in the text. 5-A circular model is also not consistent with the text in respect of the joining rings. 50 rings were to join two curtains together. In a rectangle model this is not an issue since both sides are straight. However, with a circular model this is a problem. Since both sides would be curving away from each other, it would not be possible for even 10% of the rings to be joined together. 6-A circled veil model which separates the holy of holies does not work. “And thou shalt hang it upon four pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold: their hooks shall be of gold, upon the four sockets of silver” How does one lay a circle vail on four pillars? 7- Ex 26:23 & 24 speaks of the ‘corners” The circle model has no corners.
    3
    Reply
  • @carolelouday3196 2 months ago (edited)
    Mic 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of Yahuah (YHWH) shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
    3
    Reply
  • @joesanders6069 2 months ago
    So sad, had a chance to correct a long held error. The math is the test as God clearly hid the shape with one critical data point. The lower skins, attached end to end, and arranged per the instructions provide a point to point distance of precisely 314 cubits. As many math students know, that is 100x Pi. It was a circle!
    2
    Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      What shape was it before calculus was discovered? IOW, if it were a circle why did he not use the plain language of Hebrew as he did in other places? Why does it take calculus to figure it out?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  it doesn't take calculus to figure it out. But trigonometry helps. As for interesting nuance, consider that the fabric curtains, which are for all practical purposes specified as flat and rectangular strips are given in exacting dimensions. The leather for the roof, however, is not. Why? because math for the dome roof would be really ugly, using either spherical geometry or lots of trapezoids. Hence no dimensions in Exodus 26:14. But the rectangular arrangement doesn't allow that. As for math, they really didn't need the math much, but they did need to play a literal game of "Simon says", as it's "Thus sayeth the Lord" that lays out the instructions. All we had/have to do is follow the instructions. But not from English translations; from Hebrew. Do not add or subtract from the text or he will prove you a liar.
      Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      @Project314  I am trying to understand how you arrived at your conclusion of the Oval Model. I have 4 question that I am not able to reconcile. Answering these 4 questions might be a big help. The HEBREW words used for the dimensions Orek = length Rohab = width Taken from Ex 26:1-3 10 Curtains are to be made. 28 cubits long 4 cubits wide 2 sets of 5 curtains will be coupled together. My first question: 1- Please tell me what shapes are each one of your curtains in your oval model? Vs 4-6 describes how the curtains are to be joined together with 50 loops. There is a Hebrew word used in Vs 4 “qison” meaning “outermost” or “at the end.” There is a Hebrew word used “qase” meaning “end” 2-Please tell me how an oval shape tabernacle has an “end”? Oval shapes do not have an “end.” 3-Please tell me how 50 loops are attached to one another without there being a straight edge? Vs 15-30 Give directions for the boards that will be used. Vs 18 Gives directions for (pe a) the south SIDE of the Tabernacle. Vs 20 Gives instructions for the North SIDE of the Tabernacle. Vs 22 Gives instructions for the west SIDE of the Tabernacle. Vs 23 & 24 Speaks of the (maqsu a) “corners” of the Tabernacle, 4- How does the Oval Model have sides with corners?
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  thanks for your ongoing interest and open mindedness. 1. Each of the curtains are the same. Naturally, the blue loops are extending from the curtain, but otherwise they are essentially rectangular in shape. Bear in mind the transliteration of קצ or קצצ or קצה or קצונה is ugly and misses an essential point. The term is where it seems we get our English word "cuts" from. Edenics hypothesis and etymology principles support this. 2. I don't know what oval shapes you are envisioning. The curtains are fitted with blue loops, 50 of them at each end, to allow for interconnection with the adjacent curtain. Yes, you can arrange a loop of a thread into any shape you want. I remember Ernie working with Burt on shapes many many years ago, and I think he tried to shape his chain to make a PB&J sandwich. But the imagination has limits. 3. There are seven different Hebrew words in the Tabernacle texts. Only one of them has a primary meaning of "side". The others have more specific meanings. The English "side" is such a vague term, you could use it to speak in terms of opposing sports teams, "sides" of a field, the side of a leg, the side of an arm, etc. This is where the shoebox people are really missing out. 4. I don't represent an oval model (thinking of an oval as an out-of-round circle). The courtyard arrangement of the Exodus Tabernacle is CIRCULAR, which means that the edges are equidistant from the center. As for corners, I keep telling you guys to take your English Bibles with a huge tablespoon of salt. The word that you are thinking of is מקצעת. Definitely NOT a 90 degree angle.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @danhorsam2106  you could save us both a lot of time if you just bought on of my books. Money back guarantee if ordered from either me or Amazon. No risk to you. Over 200 pages and over 200 pictures going verse-by-verse and step-by-step.
      Reply
  • @ellenlefavour628 2 months ago
    Matthew 24:11 And many false Prophets will arise and will deceive many.
    2
    Reply
  • @jeffeBrannon 2 months ago (edited)
    I tried bringing these points up, but they are just dismissed. I think Hoy brings up an interesting point that from his architecture background don't work. However - the text is plain. I appreciate Mr. Hoy trying to find an answer to his supposed problem found. We find nothing in the text that says it is circular. Mr. Hoy goes further with his "circular reasoning" (pun intended) by then going on to the breastplate of judgment. He now says this is a circle as well when the text plainly says different. Stay with the text.
    2
    Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
      We’re waiting on you to build the rectangle Jeff just with the materials given. Let us know when you’ve accomplished that.
      3
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      Which text? Your English translation?
      3
      Reply
    • @jeffeBrannon 2 months ago
      @Project314  the Masoretic Text
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @jeffeBrannon  OK, Jeff, I'll make you a deal... You can gripe about having your comment overlooked if you can do two things; 1) point out four Hebrew words or phrases that refer to circular concepts or objects, apart from עגל and סבב which Mark mentioned in his not-so-honest and not-so-complete presentation, and 2) count how many times on this post where people have cited the 119 crew has verbally responded in writing to questions or charges of negligence and misrepresentation in this comment section and compare that by percent to the number of times that I have responded with technical specifics in response to the accusations or questions of my competition and detractors. You can't be blind, blameless, omniscient, and innocent all at once given all of the evasiveness, unanswered questions, and willful avoidance of multi-witness rebuke throughout the comments that this "teaching" video compilation has inspired. The hard core 119 fans seem to demand answers and respect but cannot reciprocate common courtesy or demonstrate ration or knowledge. You people won't concede to any points no matter how true they are, and I have yet to encounter a single person on this post that has demonstrated any working knowledge of the Hebrew language. But everybody is an expert...
      4
      Reply
  • @DTH1661 2 months ago
    But it must be round 119.... Hoy has a fridge magnet costing $24.99 on his website, which says it is!!!! Also, if Kingdom in CONtext, Wesblaze and Hanging on His Words say it is circular, then it's as round as the Earth is flat. Sabbath blessings.  TEST EVERYTHING 🙏
    2
    Reply
    • @karenp.2316 2 months ago
      😅👍
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
      We’re waiting on you to build a shoebox too. Since all you heliocentric globe people believe it’s a shoebox. Let’s see it. Only with the listed material though no additions. Sorry.
      3
      Reply
  • @beeinthebodytorahclass2002 2 months ago (edited)
    If the hebrew language described it as a circle then the Jews would have understood it and would have presented it that way, however they did not but presented it as rectangular because this is how the hebrew language described it. It was not circular and the temple was not circular.
    2
    Reply
    • @Nat_Sarim777 2 months ago
      🤦‍♂
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 1 month ago
      Take another look. The word סביב shows up in Exodus 27:17, but it seems that the 119 crew didn't want people to know that.
      2
      Reply
  • @RideTheHighs 2 months ago
    Thank you for breaking this down, not that I ever believed the tabernacle was circular, but some people could be totally mislead so your teaching is very important to point out the truth.
    2
    Reply
  • @loriblair2658 2 months ago
    I am new to all of this, so I have a question. The video addressed the shape of the “courtyard” but not the tent itself, right? Could it have been a circular tent surrounded by a rectangle courtyard?
    2
    Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      Good question. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Actually, Mark goes back and forth between the courtyard and the tent itself, which he never defines by Exodus text or dimensions in his 11 part series on the Tabernacle. It's not uncommon for shoebox model advocates to skip over the texts speaking of the frame build and jump right to the end of the text where they think they've arrived at the final solution. That's being lazy and presumptuous and not so systematic if you ask me. But go ahead, test for yourself. Just don't think for a minute that this video gives the round Tabernacle thesis a fair shake. Of the 19 minutes, he spends more like 15 on the so called "test", and half of that time he dedicates to trying to give other examples that are rooted in strawman arguments (not about the Tabernacle configuration) which I've never even made. I think their work will be exposed for what it is--extremely careless and deceptive. I am stunned that they've been able to endure my comments, especially with all of the deflecting and gaslighting going on. But research for yourself, and make sure that you test EVERY thing. Not just 2 Hebrew words according to Mark.
      4
      Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 months ago
       @Project314  Thank you for your response and for encouraging open discussion and testing everything. We value your passion for biblical accuracy and the desire to examine Scripture carefully. 1. Addressing the Claim That the Round Tabernacle Thesis Was Not Given a "Fair Shake" Our goal has never been to misrepresent the circular Tabernacle model but to test it against the biblical text. The core issue remains the Hebrew text itself—not personal opinions or assumptions. If orech (length) and rochav (width) are consistently used for rectangular objects in Scripture, then the burden of proof is on those claiming they mean something else in Exodus.If there are specific points from Hoy’s work that you believe were misrepresented, we are open to reviewing them in a constructive discussion. 2. Responding to the "Strawman" Argument Claim The examples we provided were not strawman arguments but logical extensions of the circular interpretation applied to other Tabernacle elements. If the same Hebrew words are used to describe the Ark of the Covenant, the Table of Showbread, and the Altar, then we should expect consistency in their meanings. If orech and rochav mean diameter and radius in one place but length and width everywhere else, then there must be clear linguistic evidence to justify that shift. 3. Addressing the Claim That We Only Tested "Two Hebrew Words" Language matters, and the meaning of orech (length) and rochav (width) is at the heart of this discussion.If these words are consistently understood as rectangular throughout Scripture, then testing them is not a 2% effort—it is addressing the foundation of the claim. If you believe there are other key Hebrew terms that we have overlooked, we are willing to examine them. 4. Encouraging Further Discussion We welcome further dialogue and invite you to present specific counterpoints based on Hebrew linguistic evidence rather than broad accusations. We sincerely appreciate your engagement and your encouragement to test everything—and we hope we can continue discussing this with mutual respect and a shared desire for truth. Shalom!
      3
      Reply
  • @alisonmontana8895 2 months ago
    Dont put any stock in the traditions of men 119. Because...........The father of lies is on a mission to replace the word of Yah with mens traditions. We've inherited lies from our predessors, men we call church fathers, scholars, and professors. They sell the book, but they tell you not to read it. It speaks of His laws, but they say you don't it. The blind lead the blind cause they have no vision. The ditch they fall in is the valley of decision. Tossed about with every doctrine, but they have no proof, always learning never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
    2
    Reply
  • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
    One of the things that convinced me the Bible is reliable was the specific dimensions given to Noah for the Ark. The proportions are all the same proportions used today by cargo ships , navy ships etc. How in the world Noah have known this? The only reasonable explanation is Yah had given it to him. To say it was a good guess is just not reasonable. Whether its the ark or the tabernacle, the dimensions given are more than trustworthy. ❤
    2
    Reply
  • @meandonlymeandher5747 2 months ago
    bro stop using drugs...
    1
    Reply
  • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
    Ephesians 3:18
    1
    Reply
  • @gdaytrees4728 2 months ago
    Please identify the dimension of a cubit, and a royal cubit, and a cubit and a hand breadth. Are not the specific dimensions of significant importance? I have struggled to know this dimension so as to do right. I believe that a cubit is equal to one half of a yard. 18 inches. 1 and a half feet. But I want to be sure. Please help us out...
    1
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      The royal cubit is 20.6 inches.
      Reply
    • @gdaytrees4728 2 months ago
      @timjones1583  is this as in 20 5/8"? And how do you know? Did the Egyptian pyramids and their inner chambers? Built to the standard "royal cubit" ? Biblical royal cubit?
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      There are indeed several. Most just say 18". Be we have a common cubit or cubit of a man, a sacred cubit, as well as a royal cubit. There have been Egyptian sticks with markings showing multiple cubits. There is a video about Egyptians and pyramids and measuring, I think it was K2017 pyramid or something like that on youtube.
      Reply
  • @kenharoldbenjamin2190 2 months ago
    What were the Biblical words for "radius" and "diameter." They were not adequately explained.
    1
    Reply
    • @timjones1583 2 months ago
      yes they were,,, go back and listen again.
      3
      Reply
    • @carolelouday3196 2 months ago (edited)
      orech is diameter and length and rochav is radius and breadth. It is determined by context. Mr Hoy saw the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter 3.14.
      3
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      Exactly, Ken. Are we to believe that the Bible would never mention these simple geometric ideas in all of its pages?
      1
      Reply
  • @dexterleger222 2 months ago
    Leaning toward h oys understanding he world is flat,very interestingly stupid!
    1
    Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      For he who answers a matter before listening, it is a shame and a folly. The first to present his case sounds right, until another comes along and questions him.
      1
      Reply
  • @TerryStory-k5q 2 months ago
    lol Mr Hoy sounds like a democrat
    1
    Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      Well, you've probably never heard me then. Test everything? LOL.
      3
      Reply
    • @TinyLuvsBostons 1 month ago (edited)
       @Project314  Thank you, Mr Hoy for your extensive studies and efforts through Project314. I greatly appreciate your use of the gifts and abilities YAH bestowed upon you. From my observations here in this comment section, there are quite a number of people who appreciate you as well. Shalom 🕊️
      1
      Reply
    • @TinyLuvsBostons 1 month ago
      @TerryStory from my experience with communists, I mean democrats, they tend to be the ones that are brainwashed... never doing their research and relying on others to spoon feed them. Hmmm 🤔 That doesn't describe Mr. Hoy one bit. Shalom
      1
      Reply
  • @frankmckinley1254 2 months ago
    Yes the Torah is quite clear on the pattern. Yet one rather confused or deceptive person started this and the Scripturly ignorant in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots camps bought it. 🤔😢
    1
    Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
      We’re waiting on you to build the shoebox, Frank McKinley
      1
      Reply
    • @frankmckinley1254 2 months ago
      @williamaltman9606  Better a shoebox than a hatbox.
      Reply
  • @nickylouse2 2 months ago
    Maybe the shapes were cylindrical
    1
    Reply
  • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago (edited)
    So the same 2 hebrew words used describe the length and breath dimensions of the Tabernacle are also used to describe the Ark, Table of Showbread, and the frame. Is the Ark of the Covenant circular as well? Is the Table of Showbread circular? The wooden frames that were the skeleton of the Tabernacle. Were they circular? If you're not able to answer that on your own, you really should reconsider who you're putting your trust in.
    1
    Reply
  • @bobwhite2 2 months ago
    It was a suitable environment.
    1
    Reply
  • @patrickharner 2 weeks ago
    This is a poor representation of Hoy's work and a poor exploration of the text. I would encourage anyone watching this to read the text for himself and check out Mr. Hoy's work.
    1
    Reply
    • @119Ministries 2 weeks ago
      Thank you for your comment and for taking the time to engage with the teaching. As always, we fully encourage everyone to read the text for themselves and to test all things to the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Our intention in this teaching is not to misrepresent anyone’s work but to examine the topic of the temple’s shape through Scripture itself, using a plain reading of the text. While we respectfully disagree with some of Mr. Hoy’s conclusions, we also respect the importance of diligent study. We recommend anyone interested in this topic to compare his perspective with what Scripture says directly and consider the full context of the temple descriptions given in the Torah and Tanakh. Thank you again for the reminder to seek truth sincerely and carefully—may we all continue to grow in our understanding as we pursue YHWH's Word together. Shalom, —119 Ministries
      Reply
    • @patrickharner 2 weeks ago
       @119Ministries  This is a terrible response to my comment. On the surface you appear to be humble and respectful. If this is actually your posture then why are you not taking Andy Hoy up on his offer to engage in a respectful conversation? I learned this via The Unexpected Cosmology. Hoy has a thorough response to your disrespectful video. You talk about taking into consideration the context and looking at the text carefully, but you are failing to do this yourselves. This presentation comes off as a disingenuous attempt at reading the text carefully and seriously looking at Hoy's work. You have misrepresented him and his work and this helps no one. The text trumps everything- which is what Hoy is attempting to do.
      1
      Reply
  • @carolelouday3196 1 month ago (edited)
    Do justly. Speak not evil one of another. (Rule will be according to the righteous law and not the judge’s opinion, pleasure, gain, whim, or bribe.) James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge.
    1
    Reply
  • @Nachalaheternal 2 months ago
    What does 119 in your logo even mean? Truly curious. I know what 314 means for Andrew Hoy's platform but I can only think of very negative not Yah honoring symbology with the number 119. A side note but it's important that people know and understand what you stand for by what numbers and symbols you use. I did not see anything on your channel's description. If it does relate to something scriptural I think your audience would like to know.
    1
    Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
      It refers to Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible and it has 22 stanzas, all with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet
      5
      Reply
    • @Nachalaheternal 2 months ago
      @April4YHWH  Do they state that in one of their podcasts or is this just what you think it might stand for? It just seems cryptic to use numbers in your ministry's name and not state somewhere the meaning of why you used it.
      1
      Reply
    • @SvenShalom 1 month ago
       @Nachalaheternal  Tehillim 119.
      Reply
    • @TinyLuvsBostons 1 month ago
       @Nachalaheternal  that's something you need to discover for yourself. Take the time to find the meaning behind 119. Once I learned of Psalm 119, it was a no-brainer, but that was the inspiration behind the name of this ministry.
      Reply
    • @Nachalaheternal 1 month ago
       @TinyLuvsBostons  my question was directly related to their channel, it's not something that can be found out by oneself if it is not plainly in the description of the YouTube channel. It would be much more clear if Psalms was in the channel title but it is not. It can mean any number of things in the form that it is used which sends a very hazy message for what you are about.
      2
      Reply
  • @Believefor 2 months ago
    All the pictures i've seen have been described as square
    Reply
    • @advex4428 2 months ago
      Really? Blessed Shabbat!
      Reply
    • @April4YHWH 2 months ago
      And every x-mess nativity scene shows a baby in a manger with 3 smart dudes hanging out. Not accurate, but what “all the pictures” everyone has seen. See my point?
      7
      Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
      😂
      1
      Reply
  • @TimothyChapman 2 months ago
    There are places where preconceived notions have tainted translations. It's more prevalent in modern translations than older translations. But either way, this is not one of those places.
    Reply
  • @Tracy-Inches 2 months ago
    half a sphere
    Reply
  • @CherLombard 2 months ago
    How apropos but not sure he is the ac; more like the false prophet to usher in the ac.. too sad that many are blinded to the signs of the time.😮
    Reply
  • @Thesmokymountainman 2 months ago
    I think I recall Hoy saying the circle Tabernacle would have been 6 stories tall. Seems unnecessary other than visually appealing. I have studies on the Typology of the Ark and other subjects on my Ch in interested in Biblical Anatomy in our Body Temple.
    Reply
    • @WindowWorldscapes 2 months ago
      Exactly! It was supposed to serve as an intimate and functional meeting place for a nomadic people, not a monument. It wasn't about grandeur.
      Reply
    • @Thesmokymountainman 2 months ago
      @ I don’t know that he’s wrong but seems unnecessary. If interested see my Gopher and Badger study. About 3 minutes study on the coverings if this and Noah’s Ark and our Body.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @Thesmokymountainman  gophers and badgers are unclean animals. Their carcasses were to be detestable to Hebrews. So why do you think they were used for a tent roof? Because bad KJV plus other bad English translations. That's why.
      1
      Reply
  • @jspyrogram 2 months ago
    Are we being commanded to build one today? It was important to them, when they were building, but we aren't.
    Reply
    • @danhorsam2106 2 months ago
      We walk by faith. In order to walk by faith it's important to know the truth you are walking with. A "what difference does it make" attitude tells Yah you're not truly searching for His Truth.
      2
      Reply
    • @dead2selfShema 1 month ago (edited)
      Zech 7:14 during the melinial reign everyone will do the feasts (including the nations outside of New Yisrael) Sukkot is the Feast of Tabernacle(s), any who don't attend will not get rain for 1 yr. Today many practice this feast to be ready.
      1
      Reply
  • @jspyrogram 2 months ago
    Does it matter? Is it a salvation issue? This is why I had to distance this movement. Rabbit holes. Was the sky blue? Was the earth flat? Were the leaves green? Was Yeshua married to Mary Magdalene?
    Reply
    • @williamaltman9606 2 months ago
      Wow, sounds like you really wanna know about THE FATHER. Just save me I don’t care about anything else. Wow
      1
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      Is it a "salvation issue" reminds me of the earliest question coming from Eden... "did God really say that"? You'll never grow if you want to defer to reductive reasoning when everyone else is asking deeper questions. How do you respond to "Thus sayeth the Lord" remarks? By saying, "thanks anyway, we've got this golden calf over here instead." When people say that anything that is not a salvation issue isn't worth discussing, you know you are wading in a shallow puddle.
      2
      Reply
  • @CovMixMultofIsrael 2 months ago
    Oy vey! I feel like it has gotten to the point that BECAUSE we have been lied to about so many things, from religions and governments, that people are just knee jerk reacting to everything as false. I can understand how they feel, and with some of the most obviously fallacious LIES are actually propagated by religion, government and media, that it is hard not to doubt EVERYTHING. Shabbat shalom family! YAH bless and keep you, and yours.
    Reply
  • @jonathanmaestas2115 2 months ago
    Just something to look at. You have a peacemaker, you have iran and israel and gaza the wokism getting worse overall in the world. Millions of babies being murdered a year to the demon of the caninetes. AI starting to become more consistent so it can make it easier for demons to come about.
    Reply
  • @johnwilliams1353 2 months ago
    What a bunch of test everything. No I didn't have to comment but well you didn't have to blast project 314...what a lame attempt to dispels the Tabernacle and hanging on to your pagan Jewish roots.... just the facts and I'm not yelling not spoofing you at all, did you even EVEN do the math. Can't believe you guys lol that threatened
    Reply
  • @randalklaver8282 3 weeks ago
    Sorry the verses in regard to the court yard mention length and width. It doesn't mention height. So it is not about making the spherical. You are being misleading doing so. They could be describing a circular table. Or cylindrical shape.
    Reply
  • @ShaulTzuar 1 month ago
    I agree with the round earthers!! Yes!! And if the earth is not round and flat, what will we do about that? nothing. If it is round? Nothing changes. If it is flat: nothing changes. The earth's shape and one's understanding of that only has bearing if one plans on leaving the earth for another planet. Let's please focus on walking as Yeshua walked. The shape of the earth is not a foundational issue for faith and practice. I believe the circle of the earth means that it is curved like a ball. But so what? It doesn't stop my sin from being forgiven, it doesn't make me less close to Adonai. Good grief! be careful arguing about things that make no difference in eternity ultimately. Also be careful of any feelings of superiority are felt by knowing a truth that few others understand or agree with. If God has revealed this to you. Hold the view and show love to those you deem still ignorant. As Gamliel said, and I paraphrase: If this idea is false then it'll fizzle, but if true then those who oppose fight against God. Let's not fight for or against. Let's be at peace with all, especially brothers in the LORD.
    Reply
  • @jonathanmaestas2115 2 months ago
    Deuteronomy chapter 12 I've seen a lot of your videos on food laws. And I do not eat pork, seafood and other stuff like that Not because of your videos, but because God has led me to these insanely well explanations of why not to But this chapter confuses me and I wanted to hear your take on it and see if you can do a video on this chapter where God talks about If you're in a Kingdom and there's no clean animals, you can eat the unclean with the kings in that land but pour out the blood. Like water? A small note on that all the sacrifice laws each time they talk about pouring the blood onto the Earth. I don't know if some people do no to connect that with Jesus Christ on the cross. How his blood got poured on to the ground like water? When they poked him with the spear
    Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      I have a book out called "Eat Like Jesus" that looks at the Kosher laws from a NT and OT perspective should you be interested. If you can't afford it I could send you a copy electronically.
      3
      Reply
  • @joelblackford7802 2 months ago
    That "dissident view" also pushes Flat Earth.
    Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago (edited)
      Why is it that when opponents of the dome Tabernacle (that's based on the PI concept and solid Hebrew exegesis and engineering principles) show up, they always start going down the cosmology rabbit trail instead of dealing with the Exodus Scriptures and the subject at hand? Does the fact that it's shaped like a dome really trigger you guys THAT much??? It's like a Pavlovian response with you guys... Ring the bell and the mouth starts to water and the subject changes and pretty soon, all the dogs in the neighborhood are barking at cars, thinking that it was in their alpha status and by the urine left at the corners of the yard that the intruding cars were scared away. If you have a problem with the topic at hand, Joel, that would be wonderful if you shared your concerns. But leading everyone down another trail really isn't a sound battle plan that will work on a long term basis. Do you guys do what you do because without ad-hom attacks, you'd have nothing to go on and have to try to substantiate claims that have no technical or linguistic merit?
      3
      Reply
    • @joelblackford7802 2 months ago
       @Project314  because I have friends that watch your misleading posts by bots and otherwise that end up wasting our time. We talk. You're like a snake. Your Flat Earth Model has been debunked. Your Round Tabernacle has been debunked. Stop wasting our time!
      Reply
    • @dunoze 2 months ago
       @joelblackford7802  You have " friends " that are wasting your time ! ? . What , because they have their own options . I'm a Biblical Cosmologist " FEer" and watch 119 Ministries , does that make them " FEer " s ! .
      2
      Reply
    • @joelblackford7802 2 months ago
      @ I’m friends with a few Flat Earthers. They’re wonderful people. We don’t discuss FE during Bible studies. It’s not a salvation issue.
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
       @joelblackford7802  so then if you don't discuss cosmology during Bible studies, what do you do when Genesis 1 arrives in the course of your Bible study cycle? I ask this not to say that Genesis 1 proves FE, but rather saying that topics such as "earth" and "expanse" or "firmament" happen to be part of the reading of the English text, or רקיע and ארץ if you are reading from the Hebrew. Does everyone just step away at that point for a coffee, pastry, tea, or a smoke break?
      4
      Reply
    • @joelblackford7802 2 months ago
      @ why do you constantly start fights and foment others to start fights? What a Nancy Negative you are!
      Reply
    • @Project314 2 months ago
      @ not trying to start a fight there, but I am saying whether you are on one side or the other, cosmology is in fact part of the Bible narrative in different places. But seriously, if there two views, the scientific thing would be to hear out both opinions, and to be open minded without trashing somebody for bringing it up. The ignorant thing to do would be to shut down discussion and think that censorship is a path to peace. Do you see the irony in the fact that none of my written comments were advocating any cosmology in particular on this entire thread, or in any of my videos? You accuse me of starting fights, but your opening comment wasn't really one sharing knowledge, or one of cordial greetings, now was it?. No, it was trying to undermine me, reinforcing a comment that 119 made with language that has very negative connotations. Saying "that dissident view also pushes flat earth" one heck of a way to enter a conversation, isn't it? And now you accuse me of being negative? Can you imagine if you waled into a room of FE believers, and they would say, "look out, here comes that globetard again." No, that would be ill mannered and inherently reductive. Seriously, if you have words of wisdom proving the Tabernacle rectangular and why the round model is wrong, that would be a good place to start--on topic rather than dragging everyone else into a conversation that you admittedly hate to talk about.
      5
      Reply
Read more: OrignialComments

119 Comments

119 Comments, Censorship, "Hate Speech", Public Forums, and Public Responsibility

Different experiences, upbringings, tempraments, emotions, triggers, aptitudes, understandings, educations. 

Responsibility

Transparency

Posterity

 

In February of 2025, 119 Ministries posted a video entitled, "Was God's Tabernacle a Circle" under the pretense of "testing everything", specifically in this case, the round Tabernacle discovery.  While the 119 team member challenged all of but two claims pertaining to the round Tabernacle discovery, the vast majority of the "teaching" video was really an apologetic for the rectangular Tabernacle.  But were the rectangular models that the 119 team showcased in their video in effort to refute the round Tabernacle claim ever tested in accordance with Bible specifications, or real-world physics?  A careful look at their published content would require one to respond with a resounding "NO", and would reveal a grotesque amount of discrepancies in the models and reasoning put forth by the 119 Ministries team. 

The Proverbs say that "the first to present his case sounds right, until another comes along and questions him".  This is most certainly true in the case of the 119 Ministries video.  After all, it's easy to look at two Hebrew words like "orech" and "rochav" or ארך and רחב in Hebrew, which merely means "length and width", and claim that the structure "MUST BE a RECTANGLE" based upon one single verse like Exodus 27:18, which in translation usually seems to describe a rectangle measuring 100 x 50 cubits.  But what if I told you that the Hebrew text actually specified a courtyard that measured 100 cubits in length and 50 by 50 cubits in width and 5 cubits in height?  Suddenly, given the FOUR dimensions specified in the Hebrew Exodus texts, including TWO curious width dimensions, it becomes a little more difficult to make the claim that what's being described here is just an ordinary rectangle which can be specified by or conveyed with only two dimensions.

But what if I told you that there was still more to the story?  What if in their zeal and ignorance the 119 team haphazardly missed dozens--almost dozens of dozens--of details in the Hebrew texts that describe the Tabernacle as they were showing and endorsing rectangular models as visual teaching supplements?  How would you know what was true and tested?  Well, because the 119 team posted dysfunctional rectangular models examples as being representative of the Exodus text, I have taken the time to flag the many nonconformances--which 119 (and many other parties) have carelessly overlooked.  In fact, in honor of 119's "test everything" claim and numeric corporate branding, I've identified 119 "transgressions" against the Tabernacle as committed by 119 in their "hit-and-run" presentation.  I say "hit-and-run" presentation because 119 not only failed to ask me any questions before defaming my work and bearing false witness, but because they also declined a challenge to debate following their video posting, and have gone so far as to block and censor my responses within their social media (facebook page).  Hopefully, given the list of discrepancies below, you'll not only see not only how they can't count, but how they can't identify shapes, how they can't cite the proper Hebrew... and why they run and hide when challenged (this "test everything" ministry has yet to respond to my 119 questions that I've made in response).  Needless to say, there is good reason that public accountability and quality of workmanship are intrinsically linked.

For public consideration, what I'd refer to as "119 Transgressions against the Tabernacle" are itemized and illustrated the the charts and images below.  The images were extracted directly from the 119 video, along with timestamps, should the audience be curious as to the exact source of 119's representative images shown below.  

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  COURTYARD RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@2:00, 3:47, & 15:40 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
1 Shows wood material being used instead of metal for courtyard posts. Exodus 27:9-19 calls for copper and makes no mention of wood being used in the courtyard frame. 
 2 Shows all courtyard frame posts boxing in, rather than encircling סביב (i.e., saviv, not sovav) around the Tabernacle. Exodus 27:17 describes pillars as being "round about" by using saviv סביב  (H5439).  Court posts ENCIRCLED aROUND, the Tabernacle, installed נגב ותימנה clockwise (south and rightward).
 3 Shows five gate posts instead of four gate posts. Exodus 27:16 plainly calls for four court gate posts.  No translation glitches can be blamed here.   This is the first case of many dishonest weights / measures / counts.
 4 Shows 56 extra court curtain panels made / added based on misinterpretation Exodus 27:9. Exodus 27:9-19 is describing the metal frame or "slings" (קלעים) on which to hang fabric curtains, not calling for more curtains to be made.
 5 Fails to show 11 wool court curtains measuring 30 each, joined together at opposite ends.    Exodus 26:7-13 specifies curtains used to encircle courtyard, are specified installed על צדי, that is "over the sides" of the Tabernacle curtains of Ex 26:1.
 6 Shows four curtain rods only above gate curtains, unlike elsewhere on courtyard. Exodus 27:9-15 court parts list uses same terms as verses 16-17. The entire courtyard needs curtain rods (or curtains would tear).  They are קלעים slings.
 7 Shows extra silver being used as curtain band mechanism and top tether connector. Exodus 38:28 only allows 1,775 shekels for court posts (amounting to only about 9 ounces [about a half of a pound] per each of the 60 posts).
8 Shows extra (21 instead of 20) court posts on south and north side. Exodus 27:9-11 calls for 20 posts on the north and south sides of the courtyard.  A rotating overlap layout approach causes dimensional spec conflicts. 
9 Shows 100 cubit court length with 21 posts, but ignores 20 post spans 100 cubit length specification. Exodus 27:9 and 11 call for 20 posts (not 21 posts) spanning 100 cubits, but overall courtyard length per Exodus 27:18 is 100 cubits (CGI shows 21 posts).
10 Shows extra post (should be 10 posts, not 11 posts) on west side of courtyard. Exodus 27:12 calls for 10 posts on the west sides of the courtyard.  The rotating (not double counting corners) approach creates dimensional conflicts. 
11 Shows 50 cubit court length with 11 posts but ignores 10 post 50 cubit span length specification. Exodus 27:12 calls for 10 posts (not 11) spanning 50 cubits on the west side of the court, so 11 post span conflicts with 50 cubit width per Exodus 27:18.
12 Shows 3 courtyard posts spanned only 10 cubits (3 posts at 5 cubit span), instead of 3 posts at 15 cubits span (3 posts at 7.5 cubits span). Exodus 27:14-15 calls for a span of 15 between 3 posts, making the distance 15/2 and not 15/3.
13 Shows ropes tying down courtyard gate posts despite none being listed in Exodus text.  Exodus 27 never calls for use of courtyard rope tethers.  
14 Shows all courtyard posts installed above ground while putting imaginary stakes into the ground. Exodus 27:19 describes the pillars containing (translated as "vessels) the courtyard as pins.  Exodus 27:19 specifies buried court post ends (pins).
15 Fails to show Tabernacle courtyard measuring "width fifty in fifty" per literal English Bibles. Exodus 27:18 calls for a courtyard "width of 50 by 50" or רחב חמשים בחמשים.  This cannot be accounted for assuming rectangular court paradigms.
16 Fails to show how 15 cubit court post span and 30 cubit wool curtain correlate. Exodus 27:14-15 calls for the court curtains (of Ex 26:7-13) to be divided at two "flanks", each spanning at 7.5 cubits (3 posts spanning 15 cubits is 15/2).
17 Shows court gate curtains hanging from rods AND ALSO using silver collars on post side. Exodus 27:9 Hebrew describes the Tabernacle court as being metal "slings".  Court curtains hanging only from sides would be stressed.
18 Shows metal allocated to court post bases but almost none for a complete system of court hanging rods (only added at gate). Exodus 27:9 describes the court frame as metal "slings".  Hanging  curtains from sides stresses fabric.  Copper rods required; post bases NOT required.
19 Shows perpendicular tether arrangement that is not ideal for lateral load restraint (allowing lateral post movement and curtain strain).  Exodus 27:19 calls for pinned court posts.  Tether ropes not required.  If tethers were used, diagonal staggering would reduce corner post rope loads.
20 Fails to show how silver collars are employed or secured to wood posts or curtains. Exodus 27 never calls for wood posts, or for that matter, silver collars around them, but calls for a court frame to sling curtains with 50 loops at ends.
21 Shows holes in gate curtain not called for and misaligned relative to silver hook collars.  Exodus 26:7-13 calls for curtains made with 50 loops, but there is no mention of court gate curtain grommet holes or bungee cords.
22 Shows misapplied, unspecified, and pointless silver collars on all courtyard posts.   Exodus 38:28 allows only enough silver for a copper-rod-to-copper-post tee connection.  Court rods "slings" the curtains and secures them by loops only at posts at curtain ends.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  LINEN CURTAIN RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@9:00 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
23 Shows linen curtains attached at the long (warp, not weft) edges, which are the wrong edges. Exodus 26:4-5 describes curtains being attached at the "outermost" end/edge using terms שפת ,קצה,  and הקיצונה.  This is the short edge corresponding to the weft edge loom poles.
24 Shows 10 linen curtains spanning over roof, even though curtains form bounding wall perimeter. Exodus 26:1 describes curtains as defining the dwelling place.  Because strips are long and narrow, and all joined at opposite edges, they must be a ring to enclose a space, thus forming walls.
25 Shows linen curtain sag as roof, even though curtains are to be tensioned based on יריעת Exodus 26:1-6 uses יריעה and יריעת, which refers to quivering things, which would be indicative that they would be not limp, but under tension.
26 Shows linen curtains stressed at west corners of structure. Exodus 26:1-6 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be loaded in the center.  Fabrics pulled over corners are subject to wear, tearing, and puncture and are not capable of quivering.
27 Shows linen curtains bunched up at west end of structure. Exodus 26:1-6 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be bunched in a heap.  End fabric serves no apparent purpose and are hard to manage.
28 Shows linen curtain ends and corners sitting in the dirt under scaled (approximately 2 cubits of length sit in dirt). Exodus 26:1 describes curtains as dwelling place boundaries.  Curtain ends sitting in the dirt (approximately [8x8+9x9]^0.5) can’t quiver and fails to act as boundary, wicks water, and rots. 
29 Shows two sets of five narrow curtains joined to make a 40 cubit long x 28 cubit wide patch. Exodus 26:1-6 describes the construction of a ring or polygon.  Long and narrow fabric strips are specified to be suspended (quivering) to create a walled perimeter, not a roof.
30 Fails to show 10-14" gaps that would exist between 50 blue loops connecting curtain edges. Exodus 26:3-5 describes curtains interconnected via only 50 loops, which makes loop spacing at 28 cubits/50 loops, or 10-14 inch gaps between loops.
31 Fails to show purpose for gold buttons used to join center of two curtain sets on linen curtains. Exodus 26:3-6 describes curtains (eight) interconnected via 50 fabric loops, with the final two connected also by gold buttons which serve no purpose.
32 Shows linen curtains as being limp and unsecured. Exodus 26:3-5 describes 10 curtains, all with 50 loops at opposite ends.  This requires ALL curtains to be secured to an adjacent one to make the dwelling.
33 Shows curtain sets that would have open loops at opposite ends on the east and west sides. Exodus 26:1-5 calls for all 10 linen curtains to have the same measure and loops on opposite ends for interconnection with an adjacent unit.
34 Shows 3/4 of all colorful linen artwork as being hidden from regular view. Exodus 26:1 calls for colorful curtains to be used to bound the dwelling place area (use as walls), not as a ceiling or exterior wall insulation/padding.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  WOOL CURTAIN RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@9:01 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
35 Shows wool curtains attached at the long edges, which are the wrong edges. Exodus 26:4-5 describes curtains being attached at the "outermost" end/edge using termsשפת , קצה,  and הקיצונה.  This is the short edge on the loom.
36 Shows wool curtains spanning over linen roof, even though curtains form bounding wall perimeter. Exodus 26:7-13 uses the term על צדי, which is literally "over/on (the) SIDE" of the Tabernacle.  Curtain set should not be depicted as over the roof / top.
37 Shows wool curtain sag as roof, even though curtains are to be tensioned based on יריעת Exodus 26:7-13 uses יריעה and יריעת, which refers to quivering things, which would be indicative that they would be not limp, but under tension.
38 Shows wool curtains stressed at west corners of structure. Exodus 26:7-13 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be loaded in the center.  Fabrics pulled over corners are subject to wear, puncture, and tearing and are not capable of quivering.
39 Shows wool curtains bunched up at west end of structure. Exodus 26:7-13 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be bunched in a heap.  End fabric serves no apparent purpose and are hard to manage.
40 Shows wool curtain ends and corners sitting in the dirt and under scaled (over 4 cubits length sit in dirt). Exodus 26:7-13 describes curtains as a side (i.e., wall) covering.  Curtains sitting in the dirt (approximately [10x10+11x11]^0.5) fails to act as boundary, wicks, and rots. 
41 Shows two sets of narrow curtains (5+6) joined to make a 42 cubit long x 30 cubit wide patch. Exodus 26:7-13 describes the construction of a ring.  Long and narrow fabric strips are specified to create a perimeter measuring 314 cubits, not a roof.
42 Fails to show 11-15" gaps that would exist between 50 loops connecting edges on wool curtains. Exodus 26:3-5 describes curtains interconnected via only 50 loops, which makes loop spacing at 28 cubits/50 loops, or 10-14 inch gaps between loops.
43 Fails to show purpose for copper buttons used to join center of two curtain sets. Exodus 26:11 describes curtains (eight) interconnected via 50 fabric loops, with the final two connected also by copper buttons which serve no purpose (prone to snagging on curtains below).
44 Shows wool curtains as being unsecured and depicting extra loops (gaps or spans between loops would be larger than depicted). Exodus 26:7-10 describes 11 curtains, all with 50 loops at opposite ends.  This requires ALL curtains to be secured to an adjacent one to make the dwelling.
45 Shows curtain sets that would have open loops at opposite ends on the east and west sides. Exodus 26:7-10 calls for all 11 curtains to have the same measure and loops on opposite ends for interconnection with an adjacent unit.
46 Shows wool curtain completely covering decorated linen curtain exterior. Exodus 26:13 specifies wool curtain to be installed over the SIDES of tent made by the smaller Tabernacle curtain set, NOT over the top.
47 Shows last / west wool curtain as unfolded and under scaled (curtain to be folded in half). Exodus 26:9, 12  describes the final curtain as being doubled or coupled or folded over in half.

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  LEATHER ROOF RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@9:05 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
48 Shows red colored or treated leather roof covered by an upper layer, rendering color or treatment on lower layer useless. Exodus 26:13 calls for two leather roof (sections), an upper and a reddened one.  There would be no reason of color a lower layer if it were to be covered.
49 Shows ropes and stakes for securing leather. Exodus 26:13 mentions only the leather and calls for neither stakes nor ropes.
50 Shows flat roof and projecting awning at east end of the structure. Exodus 26:15-37 does not provide mention of or materials for a rigid roof extension at entrance.  A flat roof offers no watershed, resulting in ponding from rain or dew.
51 Shows tethers pulling roof toward only west end with no fastening on east end. Exodus 26:13 mentions only the leather and calls for not stakes or ropes.  Pulling the roof only in one direction would shift roof layer over time.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  TENT FRAME RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@1:41, 15:05, & 15:07 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
52 Shows planks with 3 dimensional characteristics but assumes 2d size of 10 x 1.5 cubits. Exodus 26:15 calls for a 10 L x 1 W x 0.5 W plank.  A two dimensional board (with only a length and width) is not physically viable for purposes of construction. 
53 Shows planks up to 3 times thicker/wider and heavier than Bible specifies. Exodus 26:15 calls for a 10 L x 1 W x 0.5 W plank, not a 10 L x 1.5 W x 1 D plank like Jewish scholars suggest.
54 Shows additional horizontal wood stubs on wood plank. Exodus 26:15-22 makes no mention of stubs being added to the planks.
55 Shows wood stubs but doesn't account for stubs in length and width dimensions. Exodus 26:15 list overall beam size but make no mention of extension (overall structure size would be reduced if stubs were included in overall measurement.
56 Shows thick wood tent walls, where tents always use solid frames and pliable or fabric walls. Exodus 26:18 describes the wood frame members as spanning fabric out to the edge or lip of the tent.
57 Shows a structurally dysfunctional and pointless horizontal north bar arrangement. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, which provide virtually no torsional resistance.
58 Shows separate frame sections (see 9:13) covered up like seamless mirrors (1:41) Exodus 26:15 calls for single beams, not multi-piece frames.  If wood planks were frames, gold per Ex 26:29 would need to be overlaid into the housing.  
59 Shows thin and fragile gold layer over both front and back of boards, exterior gold not visible. Exodus 38:24 calls for than 30 talents of gold, only about (0.001" to 0.003") thick or 1/4 of the thickness of human hair, depending upon cubit size.  Foil covered boards would not endure transport.
60 Shows fragile gold layer subjected to extreme pressure and abrasion. Exodus 38:24 calls for than 30 talents of gold, only about (0.001" to 0.003") if covering all boards; thin fragile gold would tear from handling and rubbing. 
61 Shows gold mirror finish and precision edge fit on wood subjected to moisture and warpage. Exodus 26:15 calls for קרשים planks, which would warp from moisture exposure via air and ground.  Precision fir and plane mirror finish not possible.
62 Shows horizontal north side bars that would demand precision alignment and leveling. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, but rings would be difficult to align if bars fit in ring tightly.  If wood bars don’t fit tightly into rings, bars would fail to offer structural benefit.
63 Shows horizontal north side bars at arbitrary lengths without any basis for sizing. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, a mixture of different lengths is of no structural benefit, and actually a detriment.  Unsupported tops and bottoms would be subject to more movement. 
64 Shows horizontal north side bars arbitrarily placed without any basis for arrangement. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, staggering half-length bars from top to bottom and east to west top down is of no advantage, especially as wood bars offer no torsional restraint.
65 Shows multiple gold ring(s) joining north bars to wall. Exodus 26 never specifies gold rings attached to walls or encompassing bars.  Exodus 26:29 refers to gold housings in the "one ring" of Exodus 26:24.
66 Shows front of roof tensioned downward and outward restrained by an unspecified inner upper ceiling brace. Exodus 26:36-37 calls for five copper balances, but image shows five copper bases and four upper lateral braces added in up top not called for in Exodus.
67 Shows no bottom lateral bracing, resulting in stability and shaping problems. Exodus 26:19 calls for silver "sockets" or "bases" per English translations, but parts are not heavy enough (1 talent per Ex 38) to anchor heavy wood planks or frame assembly in place.
68 Shows an unspecified horizontal (or 3 piece?) brace at the top of and in between four Holy of Holies poles. Exodus 26:32 makes no reference of 3 braces (or a single bracing pole) installed between the tops of Holy of Holies posts.
69 Shows 4 massive (oversized) posts maybe 6" or more to support a fabric curtain and four layers of fabric roof. Exodus 26:32 does not describe such large posts.  The curtain and roof could easily be supported by horizontal brace or rod attached to outer walls.
70 Shows 4 posts with hooks with holding the curtain up while not using the depicted curtain rod. Exodus 26:32 gold "hooks" are not merely used for curtain holding, rather they are pegs used for holy of holies post attachment .
71 Fails to show how Holy of Holies top brace (or 3-piece braces) are secured to N/S walls or laterally restrain the posts. Exodus 26:32 makes no reference of 3 braces installed on Holy of Holies posts, and Exodus 26:15-22 make no mention of Holy of Holies mating features.  Posts freestanding on dirt base would tip. 
72 Shows an unspecified horizontal (1 or 4 piece?) brace at the top of and in between five east entrance posts Exodus 26:36-37 makes no reference of 4 braces (or a single bracing pole) installed between the tops of entrance screen posts.
73 Shows 5 massive oversized posts maybe 6" or more to support a fabric curtain and four layers of fabric roof. Exodus 26:36-37 does not describe such large posts.  The curtain and roof could easily be supported by horizontal brace or rod attached to outer walls.
74 Shows 5 posts with hooks with holding the curtain up while not using the depicted curtain rod. Exodus 26:36-37 bronze "hooks" are not merely used for curtain holding, rather they are pegs used for entrance screen post attachment.
75 Fails to show how the unspecified (1 or 4-piece) top entrance screen post braces secure to N/S walls or laterally restrain the five post tops. Exodus 26:36-37 makes no reference of 4 braces installed on entrance screen curtain posts; Exodus 26:15-22 mentions no wall mating features.
76 Shows two beams on the outer (as opposed to inner) west "corners", not accounting for extra leather and fabric stresses created. Exodus 26:23-24 describes a ring (טבעת) that is made by two bent or angled cut eye segments (מקצעת), not an exterior rectangular "corner" protrusion. 
77 Fails to show how a lone ring attaches north and west beams at the west exterior "corners". Exodus 26:23-24 describes a wood ring (טבעת) that is made by two bent or angled cut eye segments (מקצעת), not  a metal ring.
78 Fails to show the Holy of Holies "in the midst" of the tribes, showing an asymmetrical arrangement instead.  Exodus 25:8 and Isaiah 37:16 describes the sanctuary (by extension the holy of holies) as being "in the midst" of Israel, which is unlike an offset rectangle.
79 Shows wood walls as being the Holy of Holies barrier, when only the fabric veil was specified. Exodus 26:33 describes a veil and nothing else separating the Holy place from the Most Holy place, ergo, the veil must be cylindrical.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  ARTICLE RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@1:49, 3:50, & 6:30 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
80 Shows a square altar, which would have terrible airflow, heat distribution, and combustion. Exodus 27:1 describes the altar as being רבוע or quartered or four legged, not as a right-angled cuboid or box.
81 Shows Ark of the covenant with high poles and low poles and with mismatching lid and box sizes. Exodus 25 describes the Ark top and bottom being of matching measurements (2.5L, 1.5W).  CGI does not depict these dimensions as matching in either image.

 

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  LOGISTICAL RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@1:41 and 2:00 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
82 Shows the altar of incense and its handles as obstructing the path to the Holy of Holies. Exodus bare ground may have been Holy, but it is impractical to conclude that the Ark of the Covenant was sitting low in the dirt.
83 Shows tightly fitted and heavily covered wood plank walls, creating an incense smoke trap. Exodus describes prayers offerings as divine smells or fragrance, as to reach heaven.  A sealed Tent would negate that principle and obstruct the pathway.
84 Shows small bird-bath like laver in poor proximity to Tabernacle tent entrance. Exodus 30:18 specifies laver placement between the altar and entrance and altar for washing.  Laver should be close to tent like a welcome mat at a door.
85 Shows the courtyard occupying a large open dead field space as if it were an animal pasture. Exodus through Deuteronomy never made mention of an animal being led inside of the Tabernacle courtyard.
86 Shows altar stranded in the middle of court requiring extra legwork and logistical and housekeeping complications.  Exodus 29:11 calls for slaughter "at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting" and Ex 24:6 calls for sprinkling blood at altar. If offered at the box entrance, makes for a messy front tent door.
87 Shows roof as incapable of shedding water or utilizing captured water.  Exodus 30:18 specifies laver placement between the altar and tent entrance.  A laver placed near the tent would allow for dew and rainwater collection.
88 Shows altar far from courtyard entrance, which requires bull carcass hauling via dragging or carting in and out. Exodus 29:14 called for burning of carcasses outside the camp.  Hauling an animal inside the court and near the Tabernacle is logistical folly.

 

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  TIMNA RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@14:44 Timestamp & Extra Pictures)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
89 The Timna Tabernacle model substitutes steel for wood bars. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for WOOD bars to be used with north, east, and west portions of the Tabernacle, not for metal as an aesthetic substitute. This speaks to the impracticality of interpretation.
90 The Timna Tabernacle model exhibits representative or symbolic but non-functioning north and south bars. Exodus 26:26-27 employs "bars" as for first and second walls (Exodus 26:1), whereas the west (or skyward) "bars" support the west (or skyward) "flank". 
91 The Timna model shows 5 entrance screen bars spanned on end of wall instead of in between. Exodus 26:27, 37 and  imply an interior arrangement as entrance screen bar count (5) matches the west (skyward) column count (5).
92 The Timna Tabernacle shows linen curtains to be red, blue, and purple, and adds white also.  Exodus 26:1 calls for blue, purple, and scarlet, with no mention of white being made in the text. 
93 The Timna Tabernacle shows linen curtains tethered to the ground. Exodus 26:1-6 calls for no linen curtain ground tethering features or hardware.  In contrast, the CGI model shows linen curtains to hang loose and unsecured.
94 The Timna Tabernacle does not include representations of the wool curtains. Exodus 26:7-13 calls for curtains 314 or 315 in length to create a perimeter.  The CGI model shows wool curtains above the colored linen layer.
95 The Timna Tabernacle employs 21 courtyard posts on north and south sides, but 10 on the east.  Exodus 27:9-11 only calls for 20 posts on the north and south sides. The CGI model shows 11 posts on the east side.
96 The Timna Tabernacle features unspecified galvanized braces bearing both compressive and tension load. Exodus 26 makes no mention of wall braces on the Tabernacle's side.  The CGI model shows tie down ropes in tension which are likewise not specified.
97 The Timna Tabernacle does not connect the colored linen mockup curtains by blue loops.  Exodus 26:1-4 specifies colored curtains to be made, one like the next, with blue loops used for tie downs.  Timna curtains are essentially monochrome.
98 The Timna Tabernacle employs five unequally spaced spooly round entrance screen posts. Exodus 26:37 calls for 5 posts but never proposes unequally staggering the posts for the sake of egress size.  The CGI model equally spaces square posts.
99 The Timna Tabernacle pitches the roof with an unspecified center spine to ensure water runoff. Exodus 26 does not specify a center spine running the length of the Tabernacle.  Like the CGI model, most depict full length center bars and a flat roof.
100 The Timna Tabernacle adds a metal brace above the east entrance to brace supports and walls. Exodus 26:37 does not call for a single brace to be installed on top of the entrance screen posts.
101 The Timna Tabernacle uses cables, above and below the curtains, to hold them in place. Exodus 27 never calls for cables.  Exodus 27:9-15 calls for copper posts and rods, not for cables and copper bases.
102 The Timna Tabernacle uses decorative and non-functioning silver caps and no silver “collars”. Exodus 27:9-18 calls for a metal frame courtyard made of copper interconnected or hooked together by means of small silver tees. 
103 The Timna Tabernacle fails to use 50 loops on linen curtain edges to connect them. Exodus 26:1-6 calls for 50 loops joining each curtain (which would leave gaps between curtains.
104 The Timna Tabernacle fails to use 50 loops on wool courtyard curtain edges to connect them. Exodus 26:7-13 calls for wool curtains, which were equipped with 50 loops and hung on a frame per Exodus 27:9-18, at a post spacing of 15/2 spans.
105 The Timna Tabernacle employs deep subterranean anchors beneath the galvanized channels. Exodus 26 never calls for subterranean anchors.  This detail is not evident in the photos but was revealed by a tour guide back in 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  HEBREW RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@6:09, 13:30 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Claims and Reasoning in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, Language, Logic, or Real-World Standards
106 Cites wrong Strong's reference (H748) orech ארך in making Exodus 27 length references. Exodus 27 "length" or orech references the noun Strong's H753, not the verb H748.
107 Cites wrong Strong's reference (H7337) rochav רחב in making Exodus 27 width references. Exodus 27 "width" or rochav references the noun Strong's H7341, not the verb H7337.
108 Restricts Hebrew term use (orech), claiming used limited to rectangles when used with rochav. Strong's H753 is not limited to measurement of rectangles per BDB or Strong's concordance, as well as Genesis 13:17 and Zechariah 5:2 contexts.
109 Restricts Hebrew term use (rochav), claiming used limited to rectangles when used with orech. Strong's H7337 is not limited to measurement of rectangles per BDB or Strong's concordance, as well as Genesis 13:17 and Zechariah 5:2 contexts.
110 Omits reference to Genesis 13:17 when claiming that "orech" + "rochav" = "rectangle" Genesis 13:17 describes Abraham's tour of Israel, where it is impossible to assert that he walked through length and width of the land in a rectangle.
111 Omits reference to Zechariah 2:2 and 5:2 when claiming that "orech" + "rochav" = "rectangle" Zechariah 2:2 refers to the city of Jerusalem, and 5:2 refers to the dimensions of a roll or a scroll, which is portrayed as something that is cylindrical as opposed to "a rectangle".
112 Cites wrong Strong's reference to sovav (verb) סבב for "circumference" in 1 Kings 7:23 1 Kings 7:23 includes reference to both sovav (סבב or Strong's H5437) and saviv (סביב or Strong's H5439).
113 Claims there is no "sovav" reference in Exodus Tabernacle texts, while “saviv” is clearly present. Reference in Exodus Tabernacle texts is not sovav (סבב or Strong's H5437), but saviv (סביב or Strong's H5439).
114 Ignores saviv סביב reference as "circle" or "circumference" in Exodus, while denying that circle references are present in Exodus texts. Exodus 27:17 describes pillars being installed "round about", i.e., in a circular or circumferential fashion.
115 Omits or ignores references to other circle, round, or circular terms, e.g.חג/חגג/חוג, טבעת, הר, שדי , גר, גלגל and נגבה ותימנה. Bible texts make reference to circle (חג חגג חוג) holiday feasts, the ring (טבעת), Shaddai (שדי or 314), yurt or sojourn (גר), Gilgal / Golgatha (גלגלת, גלגל) and “clockwise” (נגבה ותימנה or נגב).
116 Claims that קו is found in 1 Kings 7:23. 1 Kings 7:23 refers to קוה, not קו
117 Cites wrong spelling of קו in 1 Kings 7:23 (should be קוה) , whereas קן is rather used in 2 Cor 4:2 1 Kings 7:23 refers to קוה, not קו
118 Claims that קו means "circumference" and also says it's "diameter" in YT comments, when it's referring to a line, cord or string. H6957 speaks to linear spans, not just circumferential measurements, like a cord bundling sticks or measuring a drum or a cord spanning across a hole and a guitar cavity. 
119 Claims that קו  “would be used" in Exodus if Tabernacle was round or a dome. The use of, or the mere mention of a tape measure does not by any means dictate any shape that is being measured, be it round or rectangular.  Inspired writ inclusions are not dictated by 119.

 

 

 

Read more: 119 Comments

Thank You

Thank you for your message!

 

Read more: Thank You

119 Tabernacle Transgressions

In February of 2025, 119 Ministries posted a video entitled, "Was God's Tabernacle a Circle" under the pretense of "testing everything", specifically in this case, the round Tabernacle discovery.  While the 119 team member challenged all of but two claims pertaining to the round Tabernacle discovery, the vast majority of the "teaching" video was really an apologetic for the rectangular Tabernacle.  But were the rectangular models that the 119 team showcased in their video in effort to refute the round Tabernacle claim ever tested in accordance with Bible specifications, or real-world physics?  A careful look at their published content would require one to respond with a resounding "NO", and would reveal a grotesque amount of discrepancies in the models and reasoning put forth by the 119 Ministries team. 

The Proverbs say that "the first to present his case sounds right, until another comes along and questions him".  This is most certainly true in the case of the 119 Ministries video.  After all, it's easy to look at two Hebrew words like "orech" and "rochav" or ארך and רחב in Hebrew, which merely means "length and width", and claim that the structure "MUST BE a RECTANGLE" based upon one single verse like Exodus 27:18, which in translation usually seems to describe a rectangle measuring 100 x 50 cubits.  But what if I told you that the Hebrew text actually specified a courtyard that measured 100 cubits in length and 50 by 50 cubits in width and 5 cubits in height?  Suddenly, given the FOUR dimensions specified in the Hebrew Exodus texts, including TWO curious width dimensions, it becomes a little more difficult to make the claim that what's being described here is just an ordinary rectangle which can be specified by or conveyed with only two dimensions.

But what if I told you that there was still more to the story?  What if in their zeal and ignorance the 119 team haphazardly missed dozens--almost dozens of dozens--of details in the Hebrew texts that describe the Tabernacle as they were showing and endorsing rectangular models as visual teaching supplements?  How would you know what was true and tested?  Well, because the 119 team posted dysfunctional rectangular models examples as being representative of the Exodus text, I have taken the time to flag the many nonconformances--which 119 (and many other parties) have carelessly overlooked.  In fact, in honor of 119's "test everything" claim and numeric corporate branding, I've identified 119 "transgressions" against the Tabernacle as committed by 119 in their "hit-and-run" presentation.  I say "hit-and-run" presentation because 119 not only failed to ask me any questions before defaming my work and bearing false witness, but because they also declined a challenge to debate following their video posting, and have gone so far as to block and censor my responses within their social media (facebook page).  Hopefully, given the list of discrepancies below, you'll not only see not only how they can't count, but how they can't identify shapes, how they can't cite the proper Hebrew... and why they run and hide when challenged (this "test everything" ministry has yet to respond to my 119 questions that I've made in response).  Needless to say, there is good reason that public accountability and quality of workmanship are intrinsically linked.

For public consideration, what I'd refer to as "119 Transgressions against the Tabernacle" are itemized and illustrated the the charts and images below.  The images were extracted directly from the 119 video, along with timestamps, should the audience be curious as to the exact source of 119's representative images shown below.  

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  COURTYARD RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@2:00, 3:47, & 15:40 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
1 Shows wood material being used instead of metal for courtyard posts. Exodus 27:9-19 calls for copper and makes no mention of wood being used in the courtyard frame. 
 2 Shows all courtyard frame posts boxing in, rather than encircling סביב (i.e., saviv, not sovav) around the Tabernacle. Exodus 27:17 describes pillars as being "round about" by using saviv סביב  (H5439).  Court posts ENCIRCLED aROUND, the Tabernacle, installed נגב ותימנה clockwise (south and rightward).
 3 Shows five gate posts instead of four gate posts. Exodus 27:16 plainly calls for four court gate posts.  No translation glitches can be blamed here.   This is the first case of many dishonest weights / measures / counts.
 4 Shows 56 extra court curtain panels made / added based on misinterpretation Exodus 27:9. Exodus 27:9-19 is describing the metal frame or "slings" (קלעים) on which to hang fabric curtains, not calling for more curtains to be made.
 5 Fails to show 11 wool court curtains measuring 30 each, joined together at opposite ends.    Exodus 26:7-13 specifies curtains used to encircle courtyard, are specified installed על צדי, that is "over the sides" of the Tabernacle curtains of Ex 26:1.
 6 Shows four curtain rods only above gate curtains, unlike elsewhere on courtyard. Exodus 27:9-15 court parts list uses same terms as verses 16-17. The entire courtyard needs curtain rods (or curtains would tear).  They are קלעים slings.
 7 Shows extra silver being used as curtain band mechanism and top tether connector. Exodus 38:28 only allows 1,775 shekels for court posts (amounting to only about 9 ounces [about a half of a pound] per each of the 60 posts).
8 Shows extra (21 instead of 20) court posts on south and north side. Exodus 27:9-11 calls for 20 posts on the north and south sides of the courtyard.  A rotating overlap layout approach causes dimensional spec conflicts. 
9 Shows 100 cubit court length with 21 posts, but ignores 20 post spans 100 cubit length specification. Exodus 27:9 and 11 call for 20 posts (not 21 posts) spanning 100 cubits, but overall courtyard length per Exodus 27:18 is 100 cubits (CGI shows 21 posts).
10 Shows extra post (should be 10 posts, not 11 posts) on west side of courtyard. Exodus 27:12 calls for 10 posts on the west sides of the courtyard.  The rotating (not double counting corners) approach creates dimensional conflicts. 
11 Shows 50 cubit court length with 11 posts but ignores 10 post 50 cubit span length specification. Exodus 27:12 calls for 10 posts (not 11) spanning 50 cubits on the west side of the court, so 11 post span conflicts with 50 cubit width per Exodus 27:18.
12 Shows 3 courtyard posts spanned only 10 cubits (3 posts at 5 cubit span), instead of 3 posts at 15 cubits span (3 posts at 7.5 cubits span). Exodus 27:14-15 calls for a span of 15 between 3 posts, making the distance 15/2 and not 15/3.
13 Shows ropes tying down courtyard gate posts despite none being listed in Exodus text.  Exodus 27 never calls for use of courtyard rope tethers.  
14 Shows all courtyard posts installed above ground while putting imaginary stakes into the ground. Exodus 27:19 describes the pillars containing (translated as "vessels) the courtyard as pins.  Exodus 27:19 specifies buried court post ends (pins).
15 Fails to show Tabernacle courtyard measuring "width fifty in fifty" per literal English Bibles. Exodus 27:18 calls for a courtyard "width of 50 by 50" or רחב חמשים בחמשים.  This cannot be accounted for assuming rectangular court paradigms.
16 Fails to show how 15 cubit court post span and 30 cubit wool curtain correlate. Exodus 27:14-15 calls for the court curtains (of Ex 26:7-13) to be divided at two "flanks", each spanning at 7.5 cubits (3 posts spanning 15 cubits is 15/2).
17 Shows court gate curtains hanging from rods AND ALSO using silver collars on post side. Exodus 27:9 Hebrew describes the Tabernacle court as being metal "slings".  Court curtains hanging only from sides would be stressed.
18 Shows metal allocated to court post bases but almost none for a complete system of court hanging rods (only added at gate). Exodus 27:9 describes the court frame as metal "slings".  Hanging  curtains from sides stresses fabric.  Copper rods required; post bases NOT required.
19 Shows perpendicular tether arrangement that is not ideal for lateral load restraint (allowing lateral post movement and curtain strain).  Exodus 27:19 calls for pinned court posts.  Tether ropes not required.  If tethers were used, diagonal staggering would reduce corner post rope loads.
20 Fails to show how silver collars are employed or secured to wood posts or curtains. Exodus 27 never calls for wood posts, or for that matter, silver collars around them, but calls for a court frame to sling curtains with 50 loops at ends.
21 Shows holes in gate curtain not called for and misaligned relative to silver hook collars.  Exodus 26:7-13 calls for curtains made with 50 loops, but there is no mention of court gate curtain grommet holes or bungee cords.
22 Shows misapplied, unspecified, and pointless silver collars on all courtyard posts.   Exodus 38:28 allows only enough silver for a copper-rod-to-copper-post tee connection.  Court rods "slings" the curtains and secures them by loops only at posts at curtain ends.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  LINEN CURTAIN RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@9:00 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
23 Shows linen curtains attached at the long (warp, not weft) edges, which are the wrong edges. Exodus 26:4-5 describes curtains being attached at the "outermost" end/edge using terms שפת ,קצה,  and הקיצונה.  This is the short edge corresponding to the weft edge loom poles.
24 Shows 10 linen curtains spanning over roof, even though curtains form bounding wall perimeter. Exodus 26:1 describes curtains as defining the dwelling place.  Because strips are long and narrow, and all joined at opposite edges, they must be a ring to enclose a space, thus forming walls.
25 Shows linen curtain sag as roof, even though curtains are to be tensioned based on יריעת Exodus 26:1-6 uses יריעה and יריעת, which refers to quivering things, which would be indicative that they would be not limp, but under tension.
26 Shows linen curtains stressed at west corners of structure. Exodus 26:1-6 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be loaded in the center.  Fabrics pulled over corners are subject to wear, tearing, and puncture and are not capable of quivering.
27 Shows linen curtains bunched up at west end of structure. Exodus 26:1-6 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be bunched in a heap.  End fabric serves no apparent purpose and are hard to manage.
28 Shows linen curtain ends and corners sitting in the dirt under scaled (approximately 2 cubits of length sit in dirt). Exodus 26:1 describes curtains as dwelling place boundaries.  Curtain ends sitting in the dirt (approximately [8x8+9x9]^0.5) can’t quiver and fails to act as boundary, wicks water, and rots. 
29 Shows two sets of five narrow curtains joined to make a 40 cubit long x 28 cubit wide patch. Exodus 26:1-6 describes the construction of a ring or polygon.  Long and narrow fabric strips are specified to be suspended (quivering) to create a walled perimeter, not a roof.
30 Fails to show 10-14" gaps that would exist between 50 blue loops connecting curtain edges. Exodus 26:3-5 describes curtains interconnected via only 50 loops, which makes loop spacing at 28 cubits/50 loops, or 10-14 inch gaps between loops.
31 Fails to show purpose for gold buttons used to join center of two curtain sets on linen curtains. Exodus 26:3-6 describes curtains (eight) interconnected via 50 fabric loops, with the final two connected also by gold buttons which serve no purpose.
32 Shows linen curtains as being limp and unsecured. Exodus 26:3-5 describes 10 curtains, all with 50 loops at opposite ends.  This requires ALL curtains to be secured to an adjacent one to make the dwelling.
33 Shows curtain sets that would have open loops at opposite ends on the east and west sides. Exodus 26:1-5 calls for all 10 linen curtains to have the same measure and loops on opposite ends for interconnection with an adjacent unit.
34 Shows 3/4 of all colorful linen artwork as being hidden from regular view. Exodus 26:1 calls for colorful curtains to be used to bound the dwelling place area (use as walls), not as a ceiling or exterior wall insulation/padding.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  WOOL CURTAIN RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@9:01 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
35 Shows wool curtains attached at the long edges, which are the wrong edges. Exodus 26:4-5 describes curtains being attached at the "outermost" end/edge using termsשפת , קצה,  and הקיצונה.  This is the short edge on the loom.
36 Shows wool curtains spanning over linen roof, even though curtains form bounding wall perimeter. Exodus 26:7-13 uses the term על צדי, which is literally "over/on (the) SIDE" of the Tabernacle.  Curtain set should not be depicted as over the roof / top.
37 Shows wool curtain sag as roof, even though curtains are to be tensioned based on יריעת Exodus 26:7-13 uses יריעה and יריעת, which refers to quivering things, which would be indicative that they would be not limp, but under tension.
38 Shows wool curtains stressed at west corners of structure. Exodus 26:7-13 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be loaded in the center.  Fabrics pulled over corners are subject to wear, puncture, and tearing and are not capable of quivering.
39 Shows wool curtains bunched up at west end of structure. Exodus 26:7-13 uses יריעה and יריעת. Quivering things would not be bunched in a heap.  End fabric serves no apparent purpose and are hard to manage.
40 Shows wool curtain ends and corners sitting in the dirt and under scaled (over 4 cubits length sit in dirt). Exodus 26:7-13 describes curtains as a side (i.e., wall) covering.  Curtains sitting in the dirt (approximately [10x10+11x11]^0.5) fails to act as boundary, wicks, and rots. 
41 Shows two sets of narrow curtains (5+6) joined to make a 42 cubit long x 30 cubit wide patch. Exodus 26:7-13 describes the construction of a ring.  Long and narrow fabric strips are specified to create a perimeter measuring 314 cubits, not a roof.
42 Fails to show 11-15" gaps that would exist between 50 loops connecting edges on wool curtains. Exodus 26:3-5 describes curtains interconnected via only 50 loops, which makes loop spacing at 28 cubits/50 loops, or 10-14 inch gaps between loops.
43 Fails to show purpose for copper buttons used to join center of two curtain sets. Exodus 26:11 describes curtains (eight) interconnected via 50 fabric loops, with the final two connected also by copper buttons which serve no purpose (prone to snagging on curtains below).
44 Shows wool curtains as being unsecured and depicting extra loops (gaps or spans between loops would be larger than depicted). Exodus 26:7-10 describes 11 curtains, all with 50 loops at opposite ends.  This requires ALL curtains to be secured to an adjacent one to make the dwelling.
45 Shows curtain sets that would have open loops at opposite ends on the east and west sides. Exodus 26:7-10 calls for all 11 curtains to have the same measure and loops on opposite ends for interconnection with an adjacent unit.
46 Shows wool curtain completely covering decorated linen curtain exterior. Exodus 26:13 specifies wool curtain to be installed over the SIDES of tent made by the smaller Tabernacle curtain set, NOT over the top.
47 Shows last / west wool curtain as unfolded and under scaled (curtain to be folded in half). Exodus 26:9, 12  describes the final curtain as being doubled or coupled or folded over in half.

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  LEATHER ROOF RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@9:05 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
48 Shows red colored or treated leather roof covered by an upper layer, rendering color or treatment on lower layer useless. Exodus 26:13 calls for two leather roof (sections), an upper and a reddened one.  There would be no reason of color a lower layer if it were to be covered.
49 Shows ropes and stakes for securing leather. Exodus 26:13 mentions only the leather and calls for neither stakes nor ropes.
50 Shows flat roof and projecting awning at east end of the structure. Exodus 26:15-37 does not provide mention of or materials for a rigid roof extension at entrance.  A flat roof offers no watershed, resulting in ponding from rain or dew.
51 Shows tethers pulling roof toward only west end with no fastening on east end. Exodus 26:13 mentions only the leather and calls for not stakes or ropes.  Pulling the roof only in one direction would shift roof layer over time.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  TENT FRAME RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@1:41, 15:05, & 15:07 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
52 Shows planks with 3 dimensional characteristics but assumes 2d size of 10 x 1.5 cubits. Exodus 26:15 calls for a 10 L x 1 W x 0.5 W plank.  A two dimensional board (with only a length and width) is not physically viable for purposes of construction. 
53 Shows planks up to 3 times thicker/wider and heavier than Bible specifies. Exodus 26:15 calls for a 10 L x 1 W x 0.5 W plank, not a 10 L x 1.5 W x 1 D plank like Jewish scholars suggest.
54 Shows additional horizontal wood stubs on wood plank. Exodus 26:15-22 makes no mention of stubs being added to the planks.
55 Shows wood stubs but doesn't account for stubs in length and width dimensions. Exodus 26:15 list overall beam size but make no mention of extension (overall structure size would be reduced if stubs were included in overall measurement.
56 Shows thick wood tent walls, where tents always use solid frames and pliable or fabric walls. Exodus 26:18 describes the wood frame members as spanning fabric out to the edge or lip of the tent.
57 Shows a structurally dysfunctional and pointless horizontal north bar arrangement. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, which provide virtually no torsional resistance.
58 Shows separate frame sections (see 9:13) covered up like seamless mirrors (1:41) Exodus 26:15 calls for single beams, not multi-piece frames.  If wood planks were frames, gold per Ex 26:29 would need to be overlaid into the housing.  
59 Shows thin and fragile gold layer over both front and back of boards, exterior gold not visible. Exodus 38:24 calls for than 30 talents of gold, only about (0.001" to 0.003") thick or 1/4 of the thickness of human hair, depending upon cubit size.  Foil covered boards would not endure transport.
60 Shows fragile gold layer subjected to extreme pressure and abrasion. Exodus 38:24 calls for than 30 talents of gold, only about (0.001" to 0.003") if covering all boards; thin fragile gold would tear from handling and rubbing. 
61 Shows gold mirror finish and precision edge fit on wood subjected to moisture and warpage. Exodus 26:15 calls for קרשים planks, which would warp from moisture exposure via air and ground.  Precision fir and plane mirror finish not possible.
62 Shows horizontal north side bars that would demand precision alignment and leveling. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, but rings would be difficult to align if bars fit in ring tightly.  If wood bars don’t fit tightly into rings, bars would fail to offer structural benefit.
63 Shows horizontal north side bars at arbitrary lengths without any basis for sizing. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, a mixture of different lengths is of no structural benefit, and actually a detriment.  Unsupported tops and bottoms would be subject to more movement. 
64 Shows horizontal north side bars arbitrarily placed without any basis for arrangement. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for bars, staggering half-length bars from top to bottom and east to west top down is of no advantage, especially as wood bars offer no torsional restraint.
65 Shows multiple gold ring(s) joining north bars to wall. Exodus 26 never specifies gold rings attached to walls or encompassing bars.  Exodus 26:29 refers to gold housings in the "one ring" of Exodus 26:24.
66 Shows front of roof tensioned downward and outward restrained by an unspecified inner upper ceiling brace. Exodus 26:36-37 calls for five copper balances, but image shows five copper bases and four upper lateral braces added in up top not called for in Exodus.
67 Shows no bottom lateral bracing, resulting in stability and shaping problems. Exodus 26:19 calls for silver "sockets" or "bases" per English translations, but parts are not heavy enough (1 talent per Ex 38) to anchor heavy wood planks or frame assembly in place.
68 Shows an unspecified horizontal (or 3 piece?) brace at the top of and in between four Holy of Holies poles. Exodus 26:32 makes no reference of 3 braces (or a single bracing pole) installed between the tops of Holy of Holies posts.
69 Shows 4 massive (oversized) posts maybe 6" or more to support a fabric curtain and four layers of fabric roof. Exodus 26:32 does not describe such large posts.  The curtain and roof could easily be supported by horizontal brace or rod attached to outer walls.
70 Shows 4 posts with hooks with holding the curtain up while not using the depicted curtain rod. Exodus 26:32 gold "hooks" are not merely used for curtain holding, rather they are pegs used for holy of holies post attachment .
71 Fails to show how Holy of Holies top brace (or 3-piece braces) are secured to N/S walls or laterally restrain the posts. Exodus 26:32 makes no reference of 3 braces installed on Holy of Holies posts, and Exodus 26:15-22 make no mention of Holy of Holies mating features.  Posts freestanding on dirt base would tip. 
72 Shows an unspecified horizontal (1 or 4 piece?) brace at the top of and in between five east entrance posts Exodus 26:36-37 makes no reference of 4 braces (or a single bracing pole) installed between the tops of entrance screen posts.
73 Shows 5 massive oversized posts maybe 6" or more to support a fabric curtain and four layers of fabric roof. Exodus 26:36-37 does not describe such large posts.  The curtain and roof could easily be supported by horizontal brace or rod attached to outer walls.
74 Shows 5 posts with hooks with holding the curtain up while not using the depicted curtain rod. Exodus 26:36-37 bronze "hooks" are not merely used for curtain holding, rather they are pegs used for entrance screen post attachment.
75 Fails to show how the unspecified (1 or 4-piece) top entrance screen post braces secure to N/S walls or laterally restrain the five post tops. Exodus 26:36-37 makes no reference of 4 braces installed on entrance screen curtain posts; Exodus 26:15-22 mentions no wall mating features.
76 Shows two beams on the outer (as opposed to inner) west "corners", not accounting for extra leather and fabric stresses created. Exodus 26:23-24 describes a ring (טבעת) that is made by two bent or angled cut eye segments (מקצעת), not an exterior rectangular "corner" protrusion. 
77 Fails to show how a lone ring attaches north and west beams at the west exterior "corners". Exodus 26:23-24 describes a wood ring (טבעת) that is made by two bent or angled cut eye segments (מקצעת), not  a metal ring.
78 Fails to show the Holy of Holies "in the midst" of the tribes, showing an asymmetrical arrangement instead.  Exodus 25:8 and Isaiah 37:16 describes the sanctuary (by extension the holy of holies) as being "in the midst" of Israel, which is unlike an offset rectangle.
79 Shows wood walls as being the Holy of Holies barrier, when only the fabric veil was specified. Exodus 26:33 describes a veil and nothing else separating the Holy place from the Most Holy place, ergo, the veil must be cylindrical.

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  ARTICLE RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@1:49, 3:50, & 6:30 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
80 Shows a square altar, which would have terrible airflow, heat distribution, and combustion. Exodus 27:1 describes the altar as being רבוע or quartered or four legged, not as a right-angled cuboid or box.
81 Shows Ark of the covenant with high poles and low poles and with mismatching lid and box sizes. Exodus 25 describes the Ark top and bottom being of matching measurements (2.5L, 1.5W).  CGI does not depict these dimensions as matching in either image.

 

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  LOGISTICAL RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@1:41 and 2:00 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
82 Shows the altar of incense and its handles as obstructing the path to the Holy of Holies. Exodus bare ground may have been Holy, but it is impractical to conclude that the Ark of the Covenant was sitting low in the dirt.
83 Shows tightly fitted and heavily covered wood plank walls, creating an incense smoke trap. Exodus describes prayers offerings as divine smells or fragrance, as to reach heaven.  A sealed Tent would negate that principle and obstruct the pathway.
84 Shows small bird-bath like laver in poor proximity to Tabernacle tent entrance. Exodus 30:18 specifies laver placement between the altar and entrance and altar for washing.  Laver should be close to tent like a welcome mat at a door.
85 Shows the courtyard occupying a large open dead field space as if it were an animal pasture. Exodus through Deuteronomy never made mention of an animal being led inside of the Tabernacle courtyard.
86 Shows altar stranded in the middle of court requiring extra legwork and logistical and housekeeping complications.  Exodus 29:11 calls for slaughter "at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting" and Ex 24:6 calls for sprinkling blood at altar. If offered at the box entrance, makes for a messy front tent door.
87 Shows roof as incapable of shedding water or utilizing captured water.  Exodus 30:18 specifies laver placement between the altar and tent entrance.  A laver placed near the tent would allow for dew and rainwater collection.
88 Shows altar far from courtyard entrance, which requires bull carcass hauling via dragging or carting in and out. Exodus 29:14 called for burning of carcasses outside the camp.  Hauling an animal inside the court and near the Tabernacle is logistical folly.

 

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  TIMNA RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@14:44 Timestamp & Extra Pictures)
 Why are 119's Models in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, or Real-World Standards
89 The Timna Tabernacle model substitutes steel for wood bars. Exodus 26:26-27 calls for WOOD bars to be used with north, east, and west portions of the Tabernacle, not for metal as an aesthetic substitute. This speaks to the impracticality of interpretation.
90 The Timna Tabernacle model exhibits representative or symbolic but non-functioning north and south bars. Exodus 26:26-27 employs "bars" as for first and second walls (Exodus 26:1), whereas the west (or skyward) "bars" support the west (or skyward) "flank". 
91 The Timna model shows 5 entrance screen bars spanned on end of wall instead of in between. Exodus 26:27, 37 and  imply an interior arrangement as entrance screen bar count (5) matches the west (skyward) column count (5).
92 The Timna Tabernacle shows linen curtains to be red, blue, and purple, and adds white also.  Exodus 26:1 calls for blue, purple, and scarlet, with no mention of white being made in the text. 
93 The Timna Tabernacle shows linen curtains tethered to the ground. Exodus 26:1-6 calls for no linen curtain ground tethering features or hardware.  In contrast, the CGI model shows linen curtains to hang loose and unsecured.
94 The Timna Tabernacle does not include representations of the wool curtains. Exodus 26:7-13 calls for curtains 314 or 315 in length to create a perimeter.  The CGI model shows wool curtains above the colored linen layer.
95 The Timna Tabernacle employs 21 courtyard posts on north and south sides, but 10 on the east.  Exodus 27:9-11 only calls for 20 posts on the north and south sides. The CGI model shows 11 posts on the east side.
96 The Timna Tabernacle features unspecified galvanized braces bearing both compressive and tension load. Exodus 26 makes no mention of wall braces on the Tabernacle's side.  The CGI model shows tie down ropes in tension which are likewise not specified.
97 The Timna Tabernacle does not connect the colored linen mockup curtains by blue loops.  Exodus 26:1-4 specifies colored curtains to be made, one like the next, with blue loops used for tie downs.  Timna curtains are essentially monochrome.
98 The Timna Tabernacle employs five unequally spaced spooly round entrance screen posts. Exodus 26:37 calls for 5 posts but never proposes unequally staggering the posts for the sake of egress size.  The CGI model equally spaces square posts.
99 The Timna Tabernacle pitches the roof with an unspecified center spine to ensure water runoff. Exodus 26 does not specify a center spine running the length of the Tabernacle.  Like the CGI model, most depict full length center bars and a flat roof.
100 The Timna Tabernacle adds a metal brace above the east entrance to brace supports and walls. Exodus 26:37 does not call for a single brace to be installed on top of the entrance screen posts.
101 The Timna Tabernacle uses cables, above and below the curtains, to hold them in place. Exodus 27 never calls for cables.  Exodus 27:9-15 calls for copper posts and rods, not for cables and copper bases.
102 The Timna Tabernacle uses decorative and non-functioning silver caps and no silver “collars”. Exodus 27:9-18 calls for a metal frame courtyard made of copper interconnected or hooked together by means of small silver tees. 
103 The Timna Tabernacle fails to use 50 loops on linen curtain edges to connect them. Exodus 26:1-6 calls for 50 loops joining each curtain (which would leave gaps between curtains.
104 The Timna Tabernacle fails to use 50 loops on wool courtyard curtain edges to connect them. Exodus 26:7-13 calls for wool curtains, which were equipped with 50 loops and hung on a frame per Exodus 27:9-18, at a post spacing of 15/2 spans.
105 The Timna Tabernacle employs deep subterranean anchors beneath the galvanized channels. Exodus 26 never calls for subterranean anchors.  This detail is not evident in the photos but was revealed by a tour guide back in 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

   RECTANGULAR TABERNACLE PROBLEMS:  HEBREW RELATED
 No. 119 Ministries' Box Tabernacle Error
(@6:09, 13:30 Timestamp)
 Why are 119's Claims and Reasoning in Violation per the
Bible, Physics, Language, Logic, or Real-World Standards
106 Cites wrong Strong's reference (H748) orech ארך in making Exodus 27 length references. Exodus 27 "length" or orech references the noun Strong's H753, not the verb H748.
107 Cites wrong Strong's reference (H7337) rochav רחב in making Exodus 27 width references. Exodus 27 "width" or rochav references the noun Strong's H7341, not the verb H7337.
108 Restricts Hebrew term use (orech), claiming used limited to rectangles when used with rochav. Strong's H753 is not limited to measurement of rectangles per BDB or Strong's concordance, as well as Genesis 13:17 and Zechariah 5:2 contexts.
109 Restricts Hebrew term use (rochav), claiming used limited to rectangles when used with orech. Strong's H7337 is not limited to measurement of rectangles per BDB or Strong's concordance, as well as Genesis 13:17 and Zechariah 5:2 contexts.
110 Omits reference to Genesis 13:17 when claiming that "orech" + "rochav" = "rectangle" Genesis 13:17 describes Abraham's tour of Israel, where it is impossible to assert that he walked through length and width of the land in a rectangle.
111 Omits reference to Zechariah 2:2 and 5:2 when claiming that "orech" + "rochav" = "rectangle" Zechariah 2:2 refers to the city of Jerusalem, and 5:2 refers to the dimensions of a roll or a scroll, which is portrayed as something that is cylindrical as opposed to "a rectangle".
112 Cites wrong Strong's reference to sovav (verb) סבב for "circumference" in 1 Kings 7:23 1 Kings 7:23 includes reference to both sovav (סבב or Strong's H5437) and saviv (סביב or Strong's H5439).
113 Claims there is no "sovav" reference in Exodus Tabernacle texts, while “saviv” is clearly present. Reference in Exodus Tabernacle texts is not sovav (סבב or Strong's H5437), but saviv (סביב or Strong's H5439).
114 Ignores saviv סביב reference as "circle" or "circumference" in Exodus, while denying that circle references are present in Exodus texts. Exodus 27:17 describes pillars being installed "round about", i.e., in a circular or circumferential fashion.
115 Omits or ignores references to other circle, round, or circular terms, e.g.חג/חגג/חוג, טבעת, הר, שדי , גר, גלגל and נגבה ותימנה. Bible texts make reference to circle (חג חגג חוג) holiday feasts, the ring (טבעת), Shaddai (שדי or 314), yurt or sojourn (גר), Gilgal / Golgatha (גלגלת, גלגל) and “clockwise” (נגבה ותימנה or נגב).
116 Claims that קו is found in 1 Kings 7:23. 1 Kings 7:23 refers to קוה, not קו
117 Cites wrong spelling of קו in 1 Kings 7:23 (should be קוה) , whereas קן is rather used in 2 Cor 4:2 1 Kings 7:23 refers to קוה, not קו
118 Claims that קו means "circumference" and also says it's "diameter" in YT comments, when it's referring to a line, cord or string. H6957 speaks to linear spans, not just circumferential measurements, like a cord bundling sticks or measuring a drum or a cord spanning across a hole and a guitar cavity. 
119 Claims that קו  “would be used" in Exodus if Tabernacle was round or a dome. The use of, or the mere mention of a tape measure does not by any means dictate any shape that is being measured, be it round or rectangular.  Inspired writ inclusions are not dictated by 119.

 

 

 

Read more: 119 Tabernacle Transgressions