Genesis 1 and the Shape of the Earth

I recently saw an argument that since the earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, the earth must be flat. How does someone who thinks like that even have meaningful conversations with other people? It's like saying, "My son was born before my daughter, therefore my daughter is a tree." The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Maybe if they had argued that Genesis 1:2 says "the earth was without form", therefore the earth can't be a sphere, it would at least have some kind of internal logic. However, just like all human language, no matter how technical and precise, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses idioms and figurative language, which is then translated into another language (e.g. English) that uses idioms and figurative language.

The earth was without form (תהו) and void (בהו), and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 ESV

"Without form" is the Hebrew word tohu, which can mean formless, but can also mean unorganized, pointless, or useless. It rarely refers to anything's actual shape. "Void" is the word bohu (notice the rhyming?), which means empty, pretty much exactly what void would mean in the 17th century English of the KJV. It's not a technical term referring to the vacuum of space, but empty like the Sahara desert is void of trees.

The picture that Genesis 1 draws of the earth immediately after its creation is of a muddy place without clear delineation between land and sea, dark, useless, and lifeless. You, the reader, have to read into the text your own idea of how the universe works before you can find even a hint of the earth's shape. The order of creation is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

Musk, Grok, and God

This morning, Elon Musk posted a short poem about one positive aspect of religion, in general:

 

Curious to see how Grok would respond to a question about the subjective nature of religion that attempts to connect with an objective God, I asked it:

"If there is a real creator god, does it make sense for individual people to define him in whatever way feels right to them?"

Grok's reply is interesting, but like all human-programmed AIs, it ultimately fails to give the logically inevitable answer because it is trying to be inoffensive:

The question of how individuals define or conceptualize a creator god touches on deep philosophical, theological, and psychological dimensions. Here's a breakdown of considerations: 1. **Subjectivity of Experience**: Human experience is inherently subjective. People's understanding of a creator god can be influenced by their culture, personal experiences, emotional needs, and intellectual frameworks. Given this, it might be argued that defining god in a way that feels right could be a natural and perhaps necessary process for individuals to connect with the divine in a meaningful way. 2. **Religious and Philosophical Traditions**: Many religious traditions offer specific doctrines about the nature of god, which might not align with personal definitions. However, within these traditions, there's often room for interpretation and personal relationship with the divine. Mystics, for instance, often describe experiences of god that transcend doctrinal definitions. 3. **Theological Perspectives**: - **Apophasis (Negative Theology)**: Some theological traditions suggest that god is beyond human comprehension, and thus, any definition we impose is inherently limited. From this viewpoint, personal definitions might be seen as valid attempts to grasp the ineffable. - **Panentheism and Pantheism**: These perspectives might argue that god is in everything or that everything is part of god, which could support a more flexible, personal definition. 4. **Psychological Impact**: Defining god in a way that resonates personally can have profound psychological benefits, providing comfort, purpose, and a moral framework. This personal connection might be more about fulfilling existential needs rather than achieving an objective truth. 5. **Philosophical Considerations**: - **Pluralism**: The idea that there might be multiple valid ways to understand or experience the divine suggests that individual definitions could coexist without one necessarily being more correct than another. - **Pragmatism**: If a belief in a certain kind of god helps an individual live a better, more ethical, or happier life, then from a pragmatic standpoint, that definition has value. 6. **Critiques and Challenges**: - **Relativism**: If everyone defines god differently, does this lead to a form of relativism where the concept of god loses any objective meaning or impact? - **Conflict**: Different personal definitions can lead to conflicts, especially when these definitions are seen as universally applicable or when they intersect with societal laws and norms. 7. **Ultimate Reality**: If there is a creator god, this entity might exist independently of human perception. Thus, while personal definitions might be psychologically or socially useful, they might not reflect the actual nature of this being, if such a being exists. In conclusion, while it might make sense from various human-centric perspectives for individuals to define a creator god in ways that resonate with them personally, this approach also raises questions about the nature of truth, the essence of divinity, and the implications for interfaith or philosophical dialogue. Whether or not this approach aligns with any objective reality of a creator god remains a matter of belief, speculation, or faith.

We have a genetic drive to worship a deity just as much as we have a genetic drive to procreate. The spiritual drive is just harder to identify and satisfy because it's not connected to a specific physical organ. People tend to satisfy both drives in the easiest--and therefore usually the worst--ways. If there is a real Creator God, he can't be whatever we want him to be. His existence and character doesn't depend on us. He is what he is, and the best connection we can have with him must conform to his design, not our desire.

Torah People on a Mission for Yeshua

Hebrew Roots, Messianic, Torah-Pursuant...whatever label you want to slap on them, these ministries are doing exactly what so many people say that Torah people won't do. I haven't vetted all of them, so before you get involved, you'll need to do your own research.

The Binji Uganda, https://thebinji.com/mission/

Messianic Ministry & Mission Africa, https://ministryandmissionafrica.org/

Vintage Skills International, https://vintageskillsinternational.com/about-us/

Shekinah House, Launceston, Tasmania, https://www.facebook.com/ShekinahHouse777/

Kaleb House, women's and children's shelter, https://www.kalebhouse.org/

Grindstone Ministries, disaster relief and construction services, https://grindstoneministries.com/

Kehilat Bethlehem, India, https://kehilatbethlechem.com/

African Messianic Outreach, https://africanmessianicoutreach.org/

Beth Yeshua International, https://www.bethyeshuainternational.org/missions/

ProjectE15, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, https://www.facebook.com/ProjectE15

Chiasm on God's Faithfulness to the Hebrews in Exodus 2-4

This chiasm was, in part, illustrated in a series of videos by Rabbi Fohrman at Aleph Beta, called "Why Did God Try to Kill Moses"? I don't entirely agree with Rabbi Fohrman's breakout of the chiasm, though. I think a couple of his points are weak and that the chiasm is more detailed in the center than he talked about. Maybe he's aware of that and just simplified it for the video.

One thing we can learn from this is that, like the burning bush that was not consumed by the fire, no matter what afflictions the Hebrews suffer, God will preserve them through it for the sake of his promises to the Patriarchs. 

Chiasm on 40 Years in Deuteronomy 1:1-3

• V1 - The words
• dabar Moshe kol Israel (spoke Moses to all Israel)
• V2 - echad asher yom (eleven days)
• V3 - vayehi b'arba'im (Fortieth Year)
• bashtey asher chodesh (eleventh month)
• dabar Moshe el bnei Israel, k'kol (spoke Moses to the sons of Israel, all...)
• Commandments of YHWH

In Scripture, the number 40 is associated with periods of transformation and preparation for ministry. Moses spent 40 years in Midian preparing for his confrontation with Pharaoh. Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness preparing to occupy the Promised Land. Yeshua spent 40 days int he wilderness preparing for his ministry.

The number 11 is often associated with an apostate Israel, the 12 tribes with one removed because of sin. This is also reflected in the 12 disciples without Judas.

The direct words of God (prophecy), the instruction of Moses concerning those words (teaching), and even disobedience and apostacy (11) in the camp all work together for the transformation of the Hebrew people into who God needs them to be in order to take the Promised Land from the Canaanites (40). This is a pattern for us. We shouldn't seek out sin and heresy, but we do need to acknowledge that conflict within our communities and being forced to deal with sin and heresy is a big part of our journey to becoming the people God needs us to be.

Which Canon?

 "Canon" is a measuring rod. In the context of Christian literature, the Canon is the core set of writings by which all other writings and teachings are to be measured, AKA the Bible, and different sects of Christianity consider slightly different sets of books to be valid canon.

So, it seems like a valid question for skeptics to ask "Which canon?" when you talk about the reliability of the Christian Canon. But let's think that through... If Canon 1 contains 66 books, Canon 2 contains the same plus 5, and Canon 3 contains the same plus 10, the only sure, reliable canon among the three sets is the first and smallest. Everyone agrees on the contents of Canon 1, while many people believe that the extra books in Canons 2 and 3 contradict the contents of Canon 1. Of course, whether they do contradict or not can be a matter of opinion, but you won't go wrong by sticking with Canon 1. That doesn't mean that the books included in Canons 2 and 3 aren't inspired or valuable. It just means that Canon 1 is a universally recognized rod for measuring the reliability of extra-Biblical works, even those other books included in some sectarian Bibles.

Highest Mileage SUVs

It's difficult getting real reliability ratings for vehicles. The professional review sites rarely rate anything more than a few years old, but I really want to know which vehicles are more likely to last 200k miles, not just 30k.

So I went to cars.com, searched for SUVs within 250 miles of my location and then sorted them so that the highest mileage vehicles were listed first, then I counted how many of each make were in the top 40. Of the 40 SUVs listed with highest mileage (all of them over 198k), there were more Toyotas and Hondas than anything else. The only thing that really surprised me is that Jeeps weren't at the bottom of the list.

• Toyota 11
• Honda 7
• Chevy 4
• Jeep 3
• Cadillac 3
• GMC 2
• Infinity 2
• Nissan 2
• Mazda 1
• Lincoln 2
• Hummer 1
• Volvo 1
• Mitsubishi 1

Draw your own conclusions from this unscientific survey of a limited data set.