Dear Comrade Bruno,

This letter is in response to our recent discussion pertaining to whether modern day Israel should be using the moon (i.e., lunar calendar) to calculate the dates of our Father's Feast Days. This may be a real test of (what your friend, Merrill Jenkins, Sr. called) your cognitive dissonance--which you probably know is a psychological condition where the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line (or cognizant) with previous beliefs. People tend to believe only the things that they like to believe. But, (pay attention) failure to believe something does not necessarily make the information false.

I'd like to make two points up front here before delving into our subject matter. Firstly, any references to, or quotations from The Bible will be references to, or quotations from the 1769 King James Authorized Version (KJV) unless otherwise noted. This Bible was printed by the University Printing House in Cambridge, England. It is alleged that this particular version is much more accurate than those published elsewhere. It is further alleged that the next most accurate KJV has over one hundred errors. Of course, it's probably the publishers who make these allegations, so take it for what it's worth.

Secondly, feel free to share (I said share, not copy--see Luke 10:7...the labor is worthy of his hire...) the information contained in this letter with whomever you wish. However, some of our brethren believe that certain laws have been "nailed to the cross," or they may feel 100% convinced of a contrary opinion--and that's o.k. The evidence they have been exposed to has led them to that conclusion. Brethren with those beliefs, would probably not care what I have to share with you--unless of course, their contrary opinion is weak and they need to search for ammunition to shoot down the evidence that follows.

When the question is asked, "On which day of the present Gregorian calendar is the Israelite Passover (or any of His feast days) observed?" a wide variety of answers are given. The reason several answers may be given is quite simple, and should be obvious. Different evidence exists to support each different answer! This might best be illustrated by the following diagram which I call my "Boxes of Evidence."

In the preceding diagram, the largest of the four boxes (area "A") represents the whole body of evidence that may exist on any particular subject. The three smaller boxes within area "A" (areas "B," "C," and "D,") represent a small portion of that whole body of evidence, to which scholars/experts "B," "C," and "D" have been respectively exposed. People are exposed to different areas of the whole body of evidence through their study and environment. Since people are naturally exposed to different areas of the whole body of evidence, they may disagree with each other. But, each of these "scholars" think that the evidence they have been exposed to represents area "A." They think they have 100% of the evidence on a subject--and since they have it, and you disagree...you must be nuts!

My "Boxes of Evidence" are analogous to the story of the blind men who's task it was to identify an elephant (area "A"). Blind man B (box B) felt the side of the elephant and identified the elephant as a wall. Blind man C (box C) felt a leg of the elephant and identified the elephant as a tree. Blind man D (box D) felt the tail of the elephant and identified the elephant as a rope. Can you imagine the argument that pursued? Each thinking the other two were complete lunatics. Each 100% sure the others were wrong. After all, I "felt" a tree. Who are these idiots--telling me, that I felt a rope--or a wall!

Today, I don't come to you as a "teacher" via this correspondence, but just as another "blind" man--like you. I come before you to share my "little box of evidence." When I relate this aspect to others, someone will invariably quote the Scripture that says in pertinent part, "...if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (emphasis added). While we know that to be true, since it's contained in the Scripture, it doesn't pertain to the instant case because blind man #1 (me) is not trying to LEAD blind man #2 (you). I'm merely sharing evidence to which I have been exposed.

Another example, if you stated that the coldest month of the year was January, most people would agree with you. Oh, you might hear some minor dissent, maybe December, maybe February, but by and large, most people would agree with you. BUT, people in the southern hemisphere would think you to be a complete lunatic, since they know that the coldest month of the year is July!

Now perhaps, you can see why people may disagree on a particular topic, even though each of them may have conducted an "in-depth/exhaustive" study? The sad thing is, that the fictitious persons mentioned above each think that the evidence that they have been exposed to (their little box) really represents area "A." That is, they think that their exhaustive study has uncovered 100% of the evidence that exists on the subject. (Yeah, right! Dream on.) I happen to be of the opinion that NO ONE has EVER uncovered 100% of the evidence that exist on ANY substantive subject!

I further demonstrate this thought by my "Line of Conviction." Remember, my "Line of Conviction" was a line with 0% conviction of a subject on the left, while 100% conviction was represented on the right? i.e.,

      x---------------------------------------x----------------------x---------------x
      0%                                     50%                    80%             100%

In a civil trial, when the evidence favors one party over another (that is, over 50% --even 50.1%) that party is said to have a preponderance of evidence in its favor, and that party wins--just like you've seen in Judge Wapner's courtroom. In a criminal trial, the evidence against an accused must be more than a mere preponderance of evidence. It must be "beyond a reasonable doubt." "Beyond a reasonable doubt" may be arbitrarily set at a trial at perhaps 80%. That is to say, the prosecutor must present 80% (arbitrarily) of all the (weighted) evidence against an accused before securing a verdict (except in IRS cases, you understand).

An individuals level of conviction on any particular subject is in direct proportion to his perceived level of knowledge. When one admits to being "not very knowledgeable" on a subject, his level of conviction is not very high--and consequently, his opinion is subject to change as he receives more knowledge. In other words, they are teachable. However, when one is CONvinced of something 100%, one admits to (a) being exposed to all the evidence that exists on a particular subject; (b) being unable to learn any more on a subject (after all, when you have been exposed to ALL the evidence, what more is there to learn?); and, (c) being closed minded on the subject (for when you know it all, no one can teach you anything more--you have become unteachable!). So, if you are CONvinced 100% on the method used to calculate His feast days, read no further--you can learn no more --you're unteachable--you'll be wasting your time. Since I know that NOT to be the case with you, I'll continue.

On the following pages, whenever I refer to our Heavenly Father, or quote from Scripture where His Name is used, I use the transliteration of the Hebrew tetragrammaton hvhy. The letters in the tetragrammaton represent the Hebrew letters of the Name of our Father, namely, from right to left, yod he vav he (pronounced yode, hay, vav, and hay). In English, it would appear as Y-H-V-H. Supplying the vowels, it will read Yahveh. Therefore, when you encounter His Name in the following treatise (i.e., Yahveh), I'll leave it up to you to supply whatever pronunciation strikes your fancy (e.g., Yahveh, Yahvah, Yahweh, Jehovah, or even God if you prefer).

Similarly, in the New Scriptures, I've taken the literary privilege to replace the name Jesus with the name Immanuel pursuant to the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 and confirmed with the passage in Matthew 1:23. Likewise, where the translators transliterated the Greek verb christos as a proper name Christ, I use the phrase The Anointed One.

Before delving into the subject matter of this letter, I must relate a story to you that had a great impact on me. A friend (who's name shall remain anonymous--no telling who may read this letter to you) told me of a vision (or dream) he had recently. Now, he doesn't appear to be the kind of a person who Yahveh talks to in an audible voice on a regular basis. In fact, he told me this was the first vision he has ever had, and he hasn't had one since! The vision involved what looked like a big globe. On top of the globe there stood four "stick" men with their backs to one another. Then a Voice rumbled from the heavens and said, "Forward, march." Each of the stick men began marching forward, each in a different direction. When all four stick men reached a point approximating the equator on this globe, the Voice said, "Halt"!

Then the Voice asked my friend, "Which direction did the four men march"? My friend immediately knew it was a trick question, like when you're on the North Pole, you can't go North, East, or West--the only direction you can go is South! So he replied, "Without more information, I cannot answer." The Voice said, "You have enough information to answer correctly! The direction the four stick men marched was the proper direction. They marched forward!" Then the Voice said, "Forward, march" again. The four stick men continued marching until they reached the bottom of the globe and stood face to face, at which time the Voice said, "Halt!" And that ended the vision.

My friend told me, the lesson he learned from that vision was profound. He was one of the stick men the Father ordered to march forward. Now, when he see's a brother going in the opposite direction than he is, he now understands it is quite possible his brother is also obeying the voice of the Father, and not just obviously going down the wrong path. He told me he no longer tries to get people to follow the path he has taken on certain subjects, but let's them go their own way. After all, their own way may be the way the Father told them to go. Remember the vision? All four men walked in different directions--yet all obeyed the Voice. And at the end of the journey, all were united!

As I see it, a major part of our problem today--or a contributing factor to our disagreements--is that we read Scripture through our own filter (which has been fabricated over many years) and bring our own sense of meaning to it. In other words, we read Scripture with preconceived questions in mind like, "What do I want Scripture to say? How would I like Scripture to speak to me?" In my opinion, we would be more apt to discover truth if we would read Scripture with questions in mind like, "What did Yahveh put here?" And, whether I like it or not, "What am I suppose to do about it.?

Now, onto our subject matter. The first five books of Scripture (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are known as the Pentateuch--or, the books of the law. It is referred to as such because it is in those five books where we find the will of our Father (expressed as law) given to Israel. We may find the law reiterated in other portions of Scripture (including, but not limited to what is referred to as the New Testament), but it is usually a mere restatement (or second witness) of what was given to us in the Pentateuch. It is in the Pentateuch where the law pertaining to His feast days are given to Israel.

What I find interesting, is that the word moon is used only four times in the Pentateuch. The first time it is used is in Genesis 37:9 where Joseph had his dream wherein the sun represented his father, the moon represented his mother, and the eleven stars represented his eleven brothers. Apparently, his sister Dinah, was not part of his dream.

The second and third time we encounter the word moon in the Pentateuch, is in Deuteronomy 4:19 and Deuteronomy 17:3. Here, we are merely admonished not to worship it. These two usage's pertain to the Law.

And the last time the word moon is used in the Pentateuch is also in Deuteronomy, at 33:14. Chapter 33 generally deals with the blessings bestowed upon the Israelites (or the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel), and verse 14 deals specifically with the blessings bestowed upon Joseph.

The only time the word moon is used in regard to the Law, is when we are told not to worship it. It was never used in regard to calculating, or setting the dates of His feast days.

You've probably heard the argument, "Well, the word month should have been translated moon in the Pentateuch." Maybe it should have! Maybe it should have been translated year, or day. But before we assume (ass-u-me) anything, we need to uncover any evidence that exits to substantiate that assumption.

Three Hebrew words and three Greek words have been translated into the words month, months, and monthly (month/s/ly) in the Scripture. Four Hebrew words and two Greek words have been translated into the words moon, and moons (moon/s).

 Month/s/ly: H2320 H3391 H3393 G3376 G5072 G5150
 Moon/s:     H2320 H3391 H3394 H3842 G4582 G3561

Notice next to month/s/ly that the words H2320 and H3391 were also translated moon/s. But the other four words translated month/s/ly were NOT also translated moon/s. Also notice that the other four words translated moon/s were NOT also translated month/s/ly. Now, before we look a bit closer at the words H2320 and H3391, let me say a few words about using a concordance.

I probably don't have to remind you that a concordance is not a dictionary (contrary to what it may state near the back of Strong's). That is to say, a concordance does not define words. A dictionary defines words. A concordance merely shows you (a) where a word was used, and (b) in the author's opinion, how a word was used or translated. In the second edition of Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, p. 378, it states that a concordance is;

Notice the conspicuous absence of word definitions. For sake of example, the Greek word pascha (pronounced pas'-khah) appears 29 times in the New Testament. 28 times it was translated as passover, and one time (in Acts 12:4 in the KJV) it was translated as Easter.

When you look up the Greek word pascha in Dr. Strong's concordance, you find in pertinent part, "...Easter, Passover." If you use the concordance as a dictionary, you could come away with the misconception that pascha means Easter and Passover.

When you look up the word in a dictionary, you come away with an entirely different meaning. For example, in the 1981 edition of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, vol. 2, p. 14, we find;

In the fourth edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 147, under the word Easter, it states in pertinent part;

And in the fifth edition of The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 145, we find the following;

So, the next time you hear someone say, "I looked up the word in Strong's, and it means..."--chances are, they might possibly be grossly misled. Don't you make the same mistake by using the concordance as a dictionary.

In the concordance, H2320 is the word chodesh (pronounced kho'-desh). So when we see, next to chodesh, "new moon; by implication, a month" we know that chodesh does not mean "new moon; by implication, a month" but that (in Dr. Strong's opinion) the word was used as "new moon; by implication, a month." But then, we already knew that from the above. We saw that H2320 was used as month/s/ly (by implication, a month) and moon/s (new moon).

What I find interesting, is that the word chodesh is used 242 times in Scripture, and 221 times it was translated month/ly (91% of the time) and 20 times it was translated as new moon (a mere 8% of the time). One time it was translated as another word. H3391 is the word yerach (pronounced yeh'-rakh). It is used 13 times in Scripture. 11 times it was translated month (85% of the time) and 2 times it was translated moon (15% of the time). So, what is it in the above statistics that would CONvince someone that "...the word month should have been translated moon in the Pentateuch"? I don't have eyes to see the logic, nor ears to hear the reason. But, then again, the only people who profess that "...the word month should have been translated moon in the Pentateuch" are the people who use the moon to calculate when the feast days occur.

When asked why "...the word month should have been translated moon in the Pentateuch," no reason, logic, or common sense answer is offered. Instead, the answer we are given is that, "it fits"! Sure "it fits" if you're using it--but it doesn't "fit" if you're not using it. Let's not use a method, then find evidence to support that method. Let's first uncover all the evidence we are allowed to uncover, then use the method that has a preponderance of evidence in its favor.

Another reason given in favor of using the moon to calculate the Israelite feast days is found in the 104th Psalm, verse 19.

Those who use the moon, use "He appointed the moon for seasons" literally. But let's look at the rest of the verse. "...the sun knoweth..."! Does the sun, an inanimate object "...knoweth..." anything? "...the sun knoweth his going down." Does the sun go down? Or, does the earth, revolving around on its axis, give the appearance of the sun going down? It's obvious that you can't take that verse literally--but those who would use the moon want to take the first part of it literally, admitting that the second part should not be taken literally! A very convenient private interpretation.

In the Ferrar Fenton translation of the 104th Psalm, verse 19 we find,

That's kind of pretty. In fact, the King James Version quoted above is kind of pretty also. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PRETTY! The Psalms are nothing more, and nothing less than poetry and songs contained in the Scriptures (but an important part of the Scriptures, I might add). Poetry and songs are suppose to be pretty. The Law was not given to Israel in the Psalms (as important as they are). The 104th Psalm, by the way, is a poem.
[My comment: I think the author poorly worded this, as he believes as I do, that the Pslams are more than merely poetry!]

Still another reason given for using the moon is also found in the Book of Psalms. The 136th Psalm is a song--and in verse 8 we find the following:

Notice here, that two things "...rule by night..."; specifically, the moon and the stars. This system of having two rulers immediately brings to mind Matthew 6:24 and James 1:8.

Once again, looking at the Ferrar Fenton translation of the same Psalm (136:8), we find this:

I, personally, can accept guiding better than I can accept rule. During the day, you can be guided by the sun, and during the night, you can be guided by the stars and the moon, if in fact the moon is there during the night. Notice I said "there" and not "visible." I'm not talking about cloudy nights. I will show you later, as a matter of fact, the moon is quite often absent in the night time sky (even on clear nights)--and just as often present, during the day time sky! I know you've seen the moon in the day time sky. When you do, there is a night time sky somewhere on earth, and the moon is totally absent from that night time sky. [Poorly stated: the issue is whether one has line-of-sight to see the moon.] How can one reason in his own mind, that the moon rules by night, if it's absent?

I also hear the argument that, "there is no doubt that the Bible reveals the fact that Israel observed the new moon festivals," to which I reply, "there sure isn't"! And K-Mart's receipts reveal that Israel, by and large today, observe Christmas, Easter, Halloween, et cetera, ad nauseum. Don't show me we where we did something--show me where we were commanded to do it.

Another basis for using the moon is found in Genesis 1:16, where we find the following:

The phrase "...He made the stars also" gives one the impression that the GREATER of the TWO GREAT lights must be the sun, while the LESSER of the TWO GREAT lights must be the moon. 100% of the preachers I've talked to think the greater of the two great lights is the sun and the lesser of the two great lights is the moon. 100% of the commentaries I have read indicate the greater of the two great lights is the sun and the lesser of the two great lights is the moon. When I encounter 100% agreement on ANY subject, I immediately become suspect.

It reminds me of the story of the board meeting at General Motors some years ago. The chairman (who's name escapes me) brought an idea of his up for discussion. None of the board members could find any fault with the chairman's idea. The chairman promptly tabled the idea stating that "no idea is perfect or without fault. The mere fact that you cannot find any problems with my idea indicates to me that you haven't given it enough thought."

I have now come to understand (and Dr. Carl Baugh, of the Creation Evidences Museum at Rt. 205 in Glen Rose Texas, 76043, is in agreement), that the greater of the two great lights is the sun, and the lesser of the two great lights is the stars. Here is my reasoning. Planets and moons are not lights. Suns and stars are lights. Our moon is not a light! It merely reflects the light from the sun--notwithstanding the fact that we call it "moonlight." Just like the earth is not a light, but merely reflects the light from the sun. The astronauts saw the "earthlight." They claimed it was ten times more intense (or GREATER) than "moonlight."

If the moon is the lesser of the "...two great lights..." how can you rationalize the earthlight being ten times more intense than one of the two great lights? If you insist the moon is a light, you must admit the earth is also a light. But now you have THREE (sun, moon, earth) GREAT LIGHTS! "And Yahveh...made two great lights..." It just doesn't compute. Let's look once again at that verse.

It certainly appears that the greater of the two great lights would be the sun, and the lesser of the two great lights would be the moon. Notice that the words "He made" are in italics. We are told that words in italics were not in the original writings, but were added by the translators for clarification. Let's read it again now, but without the italicized words.

Well it still appears that the greater of the two great lights is the sun, and the lesser of the two great lights is the moon. Rhetorical question #1: Why did the translators add "He made"? It doesn't appear to clarify anything.

The next step is to look up the word "also" in Strong's Concordance. When I did that, there wasn't any reference number next to the word. In reading the instructional pages of Strong's, it tells us when no number appears for a word, that word was not in the original writings! Rhetorical question #2: Why didn't the translators put the word "also" in italics? Another question I cannot answer. Let's read it again, but this time without the italicized words, and without the word "also."

Now it's beginning to take on a new meaning; a more accurate meaning. We have also been told the original writings did not have any punctuation in them. Punctuation was added by the translators. Notice the colon the translators placed after the word "night." Let's now look at the rules of the colon.

Let's now try to apply the rules of the colon punctuation to Genesis 1:16.

The colon "...connects..." the two great lights "...to..." the stars! The sun is the closest star to the planet earth!

One fellow presented the argument to me that the lesser light must mean the moon since the word light is in its singular form. He said if the lesser light referred to the stars, it would appear in its plural form. The word light (singular) appears in Genesis 1:16 two times. In Strong's we find that the word light is word #H3974. The word lights (plural) appears in Genesis 1:16 one time. Again, in Strong's we find that the word lights is word #H3974. It's the same word! It appears that the translators decided whether or not the word would have an "s" on the end of it, or not.

Additionally, the question might be asked, "Is the light (singular) from two 100 watt light bulbs (plural) as great as the light from one 200 watt light bulb?" It is grammatically (and scientifically) correct to indicate that a light (singular) may come from more than one source. e.g., "Is the light (singular) generated by the candles (plural) on the birthday cake sufficient to take pictures without a flash attachment?" Sorry, in my opinion, the singular/plural argument doesn't hold water.

Let's move on, and look at the reason He set the two great lights in the firmament. We find the reason outlined in the following:

So, the reasons for the two great lights are:

Let's look at each of the reasons, and try to apply the sun, moon, and stars to the reasons given in Genesis. Which of the celestial bodies in question (sun/moon/stars), "A. divide the day from the night?" The sun divides the day from the night, and the stars divide the day from the night. You could look at the sun and know it is day, for the sun is not in the night time sky. You could look at the stars and know it is night, for the stars are not visible in the day time sky. If you looked at the moon, you couldn't tell if it were day or night, for sometimes it is in the night time sky (approximately 50% of its revolution) and sometimes it is in the day time sky (approximately 50% of its revolution).

Which of the celestial bodies in question is, "B. for signs?" The stars are for signs, as in the 12 signs of the zodiacal belt--one for each month--three for each season. The sun is not for signs, nor is the moon used for signs.

Which of the celestial bodies is, "C. for seasons?" The stars are used for seasons with three signs of the zodiacal belt designated for each season. You could look at the stars, identify the constellation, and know the current season. You can't look at the sun or moon and identify the current season.

Which of the celestial bodies is, "D. for days?" The sun can be used to count days, (the second time the sun came up is the second day) and the stars can be used to count days (the second time the stars came out is the second day) but the moon cannot be used to count days, because sometimes it is in the daytime sky, and sometimes it is in the nighttime sky.

Which of the celestial bodies is, "E. for years?" The sun can be used for years (from vernal equinox to vernal equinox, etc.), and the stars can be used for years (when a certain constellation returns to its present position in a year), but the moon cannot be used for years.

Which of the celestial bodies is, "F. to give light upon the earth?" The sun gives light upon the earth. The stars give light upon the earth. The moon does not give light upon the earth. The operative word here is "give." The sun and stars, being lights, can give

light. The moon, not being a light, cannot give light, but can merely reflect light like all other planets and moons.

Which of the celestial bodies "G. rules over the day?" The sun could be said to "rule" over the day since it is always present during the day. The stars could not be said to "rule" over the day since they are never visible during the day. The moon could not be said to "rule" over the day since it is only visible in the day time sky 50% of the time during its revolution.

Which of the celestial bodies "H. rules over the night?" The stars could be said to "rule" over the night since they are always present during the night. The sun could not be said to "rule" over the night since it is never visible during the night. The moon could not be said to "rule" over the night since it is only visible in the night time sky 50% of the time during its revolution.

And finally, which of the celestial bodies, "I. divides the light from the darkness?" The sun divides the light from the darkness since it is never visible during the darkness. The stars divides the light from the darkness since they are never visible during the light. The moon does not divide the light from the darkness since it is visible 50% during the light of the day and 50% during the darkness of the night in the course of its revolution.

To summarize then, sometimes the sun can be used to fulfill the reasons for putting the two great lights in the firmament; and sometimes the stars can be used to fulfill the reasons for putting the two great lights in the firmament; but, as a matter of fact, the moon can never be used as the reasons for putting the two great lights in the firmament of the heavens.

Let's look at the following diagram. The diagram depicts midnight (m), sunrise (SR), sunset (SS), moonrise (MR), and moonset (MS) on three actual days on the Gregorian calendar--July 10, 11, and 12, A.D.1991.

         Jul 10, '91         Jul 11, '91         Jul 12, '91
           SR        SS       SR        SS        SR        SS
          6:35      8:57     6:36      8:57      6:36      8:57
      m_____|_________|__m_____|_________|___m_____|_________|___m
          |          |        |           |         |         |
        5:02        8:11     6:14        9:03      7:30      9:47
         MR          MS       MR          MS        MR        MS

"m" represents midnight as the division of days. "SR" and "SS" indicate sunrise and sunset respectively on the three aforementioned days. The times under "SR" and "SS" represent the times of sunrise and sunset on those days. The times below the lines represent the times of moonrise (MR) and moonset (MS) on the three days illustrated.

Notice that the moon sets on July 10 at 8:11 p.m. It had been in the day time sky since 5:02 a.m. that morning. It "traveled" across the sky with the sun and set 46 minutes before the sun set that night. On the 11th, the moon rose at 6:14 a.m. (22 minutes before the sun rose) and traveled across the sky with the sun. The sun set that night at 8:57 p.m. and 6 minutes later at 9:03 p.m. the moon set! The moon was in the daytime sky ALL DAY! So how does the moon divide the day from the night? How does the moon give light upon the earth? How does the moon rule over the night? How does the moon divide the light from the darkness? The simple answer to all those questions is, "It doesn't."

A similar event (as depicted in the diagram--where the moon is in the daytime sky--not in the nighttime sky) occurs once every 29.53 days. And it's gradual. Notice that on the 10th, the moon set 46 minutes before the sun. Every 29.53 days, the moon is between the sun and the earth (today we call that event the "new moon") and cannot be seen in the night time sky--because it's not there!

Also, every 29.53 days the earth is between the moon and the sun (today we call that event the "full moon") and the fullness of the moon can be seen in the night time sky. This event is one of the very few days each month, that the moon is in the night time sky from dusk until dawn. Here comes another rhetorical question: "How can the moon rule the night if once every 29.53 days (as on 7-11-91) it is never in the night time sky"? It is probably safe to say, that the moon, during its orbit around the earth, is (on average) in the day time sky approximately 50% of the time and in the nighttime sky (only) approximately 50% of the time.

To summarize, the moon does not fit any of the criteria given, as the reasons for putting the two great lights in the firmament. Another rhetorical question: "Why do the majority of people think the lesser light is the moon"? Could their brain have been fried in church?

It takes the moon 27.32 days to make a 360 degree revolution around the earth. This is known as a sidereal revolution. It takes the moon 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 2.8 seconds) to go from new moon to new moon. This is known as a synodical revolution. Lunar months are measured in synodical revolutions and alternate between 29 and 30 days. A lunar year of 12 lunar months (six 29 day and six 30 day months--so it comes close to averaging 29.53 days) is 354 days.

Most encyclopedias will inform you that the lunar calendar is of Babylonian origin. The Jews of today are one of only a few people (including some mislead Israelites) who still use this outdated anti-Scriptural Babylonian lunar calendar.

We have proof from Scripture that the Adamites, during the time of Noah, were NOT using the Babylonian lunar calendar. To wit:

Here we're informed that "...the windows of heaven were opened" on 2/17. Then, "...the ark rested...upon the mountains of Ararat" 7/17. The time between 2/17 and 7/17 is obviously 5 months. Continuing in Genesis, we find the following.

Here we're informed that the waters were upon the earth 150 days. If Noah was using the Babylonian lunar calendar, 5 months of alternating 29 and 30 days would be either of the following two:

But, "...the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days" and " after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." So we know Noah was not using the Babylonian lunar calendar. If he was, the waters would have prevailed upon the earth 147 (or 148) days. And they would have abated after the end of 147 (or 148) days.

These, by the way, are the four verses used by some people to "prove" that a Biblical month has 30 days. And I say, "It proves no such thing!" That's right. It does not prove that a Biblical month has 30 days--it only proves that the five months in question averaged 30 days.

One must be very careful when using averages. You've no doubt heard of the statistician who drowned in a river with an average depth of 12 inches! Also, averages can be used to "prove" the impossible. Look at the following illustration.

The distance form A to B represents 1 mile. The distance from B to C represents 1 mile. The distance from A to C represents 2 miles. Question: If you traveled from A to B at a rate of 30 miles per hour, how fast would you have to travel from B to C in order to average 60 miles per hour from A to C?

Most people will answer 90 mph. Their proof is 30 plus 90 equal 120. 120 divided by 2 equal 60 mph. You see, we used averages to prove that if you went 30 mph from A to B, and you went 90 mph from B to C you would average 60 mph from A to C.

But--consider this. If you went 30 mph from A to B, your elapsed time would be 2 minutes. If your goal is to average 60 mph from A to C, you would need to cover that distance in 2 minutes! You already used your 2 minutes going from A to B at 30 mph. If you traveled from B to C at the speed of light--you could not average 60 mph. It's impossible--yet we "proved" the impossible with averages. Don't be too quick to claim a Biblical month has thirty days based on the account of the flood above.

Watch what happens when we apply the same logic that is used to "prove" a Biblical month has 30 days (based on the account of the Noahian flood in Genesis), to our current calendar.

                                                         28 days Feb
                                            31 days Jan  31 days Mar
                               31 days Dec  28 days Feb  30 days Apr
                               31 days Jan  31 days Mar  31 days May
                               28 days Feb  30 days Apr  30 days Jun

                     Total     90 days  120 days  150 days
Divided by the # of months        3       4         5
Average days per month           30      30        30

Using same logic to CONclude that a Biblical month has 30 days (based on the information in Genesis 7:11, 8:4, 7:24, and 8:3), we can also CONclude that (A) December, January, and February all have 30 days--or (B) January, February, March, and April all have 30 days--or (C) February, March, April, May, and June all have 30 days. Yes, we can CONclude that, but our CONclusions would be incorrect. We would be more correct to conclude that the months in the above illustrations averaged 30 days (including the Biblical illustration).

One last observation on this subject. From 2/17 to 7/17 (like the account of the flood in Genesis) on our current Gregorian calendar is 5 months; or 150 days (excepting leap year)! Significant? Time will tell.

Those few people who still use the moon to determine time (i.e., lunar month, lunar year) will admit that a 13th lunar month must be added to their calendar seven times in each 19 year cycle, in order to balance with the solar calendar. (Rhetorical question #3! Why would anyone using a lunar timetable, want to balance to the solar calendar? If the solar calendar is important enough to balance with, WHY NOT JUST USE IT?)

Now, the question becomes, in which years of the 19 year cycle, is a 13th month added? And the answer is, in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th years of a 19 year cycle. This 19 year cycle is commonly referred to as a "Metonic Cycle" after an Athenian scientist/astronomer named Meton. But, watch what we find in the Encyclopedia Americana, 1959 ed., vol V, pp 191-192.

And then, in vol XIX, p 410, ibid, we find,

And in The Jewish People's Almanac, 1988 ed., p 403 we find that "All Jews on earth must 'Sanctify the Moon' (Kiddush Levana) when a new moon shows itself at the beginning of each Jewish month." (Emphasis added.)

Now, one must ask the question, "When do those (I'll refrain from using the word lunatics), who use the lunar calendar, next add a 13th month to their lunar calendar, in order to balance with the solar calendar?" And, the answer is simple. (Actually, it's not.) Here's the formula. You take the "Jews year" and divide it by 19. The quotient represents the number of the last completed 19 year cycle. The remainder represents the number of the year in the current 19 year cycle. If the remainder is 0, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, or 17, add a 13th month to the calendar.

How do you determine the Jews year? Simple. (Again, actually, it's not.) Here's the formula. You take the current year on the Gregorian calendar and add 3761 and the sum is the Jews year--except--if the current date is between January 1st and the vernal equinox, subtract one from the current year on the Gregorian calendar before adding 3761!

Here's an example. If today is February 28, 1993, do we add a 13th month to the lunar calendar in order to balance with the solar calendar this year?

?Step 1. Take the year 1993.

?Step 2. Subtract 1 because 2/28 is between 1/1 and 3/20.

?Step 3. Add the constant 3761 and you have the Jewish year.

?Step 4. Divide the Jewish year by the constant 19.

The above example tells us that we have had 302 nineteen year cycles pass. We are currently in the 15th year of the 303rd 19 year cycle. We do not add a 13th month in the 15th year of a 19 year cycle. Simple? Actually, the lunar calendar is of Babylonian origin. The word Babel (pronounced baw-bel') is Strong's Hebrew word H0894. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states that Babel or Babylon means "...confusion (by mixing)..." To use the Babylonian way to do things, is to use the confused way of doing things. To use the Babylonian lunar calendar to set the feast dates, is to use the confusing way to set the feast dates. Now remember, 1 Corinthians 14:33 states that "For Yahveh...is not the author of confusion..." Put another way, Yahveh is not the author of using the lunar calendar to set His feast dates.

Let's turn to The Scriptures to see if it addresses how many months are contained in a Scriptural calendar year. We'll first look at Esther 2:12.

In commenting on Esther 2:12, The Wycliff Bible Commentary, 1962 ed., p 450, we find,

In Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1967 abridged ed., p 427, we find,

For witness #2 on the number of months in a Scriptural year, let's look at Revelation 22:2.

For witness #3 on the number of months in a Scriptural year, let's look at 1 Kings 4:7.

And for the 4th witness, as to the number of months in a Scriptural year, we turn to 1 Chronicles 27:1-15.

So, we find four Scriptural witnesses that indicate that a Scriptural year has 12 months, and NO Scriptural witnesses that indicate a Scriptural year has 13 months in it. And remember, if you use the lunar calendar, you must add a 13th month 7 times every 19 years. The phrase "13th month" does not appear in The Scriptures. We not only have a preponderance of evidence--but evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, that a Scriptural year has twelve months. It follows then, that any year with more, or less, than twelve months is unscriptural. The Metonic Cycle (a.k.a., the Babylonian Calendar) is unscriptural! If you reckon time by the lunar cycles, out of necessity, seven times in every 19 year cycle (37%) must have 13 months, and is therefore unscriptural.

I want to do a word comparison now. Let's compare the word "ABIB" (pronounced aw-beeb') and the word "NISAN" (pronounced nee-sawn'). 100% of the preachers that I've heard address these words, claim that they are synonymous. 100% of the commentaries that I have read, claim that they are synonymous. According to my "Rule of 100%" I immediately become suspect.

ORIGIN: The origin of the word ABIB is from the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, directly or indirectly through Moses. The origin of the word NISAN is from Babylon. In most dictionaries you will find that the word NISAN replaced the word ABIB after the Babylonian captivity of Israel. In The Jewish People's Almanac, 1988 ed,. p 84, we find that "During the Babylonian exile (ca. 586 B.C.E.) the Jews not only adopted the names of the Babylonian-Assyrian months, but they also followed the Assyrian astronomers and astrologers..." (Emphasis added.)

USAGE: The word ABIB is used six times in Scripture. The references are: Exodus 13:4, 23:15, 34:18 (twice), and Deuteronomy 16:1 (twice). All six times occur in the Pentateuch--or, the books of the Law! The word NISAN is used only two times in the Bible--in Nehemiah 2:1 and Esther 3:7. Both times occur around the time of the Babylonian captivity--just as the dictionaries and The Jewish People's Almanac suggest.

MEANING: The word ABIB is said to mean, to be tender, a young ear of grain, or green ears of corn, etc. No meaning can be found for the word NISAN. You merely find the explanation that it is the first month of the Jewish sacred year. Dr. James Strong claims that it is "probably of foreign origin." Babylon is certainly considered foreign!

OCCURRENCE: The first day of ABIB occurs on the vernal equinox. To determine the first day of NISAN is a little more confusing. Prior to A.D. 359, the first day of NISAN occurred on the day of the first visible new moon, after the vernal equinox. The visible new moon always occurs after the astronomical new moon. The astronomical new moon is totally "dark" (so to speak) and unobservable to the naked eye, especially because you have to look at the sun to see it. The astronomical new moon occurs when the moon is between the earth and the sun. After A.D. 359, the first day of NISAN occurs 14 days prior to the first FULL (not NEW) moon after the vernal equinox. Remember 1 Corinthians 14:33? "...Yahveh...is not the author of confusion..."

The change that Hillel II made was the computation of the Jews (in contradistinction to the Christian) passover. As stated earlier, prior to A.D. 359, the first day of Nisan occurred on the day of the first visible new moon after the vernal equinox. That computation would have made the Jews passover on the next full moon, approximately 15 days after the astronomical new moon (14 days after the visible new moon). After A.D. 359, the first day of NISAN occurred 14 days prior to the first full moon after the vernal equinox. The Jews passover still falls on the full moon. So, why the change?

It's very subtle. Prior to A.D. 359, you merely waited for the first visible new moon, after the vernal equinox, and that was Nisan 1. It's easy to get to 15 from there. After A.D. 359, you waited for the first full moon, after the vernal equinox, and that was Nisan 15--the Jews passover. You see, sometime prior to A.D. 359, the Jews had stopped slaughtering their lamb dinner for passover, similar to the instructions in Exodus 12:3 & 6. ???

It was crucial to know when the tenth day, and the fourteenth day of the month occurred. The only way to know this was to know when the first day of the month occurred and then count to ten and fourteen. After A.D.359, the Jews, by and large, no longer ate lamb for their passover meal. They no longer cared, or had to know when the tenth and fourteenth occurred. The only day important to them now was the fifteenth of Nisan (their passover)--and they always considered the fifteenth to be on the full moon.

To recapitulate, prior to A.D.359, they had to know when the first (new moon) of Nisan occurred so they could count to Nisan 10, 14, and 15 (full moon). After A.D.359, the first, tenth, or fourteenth were unimportant. Only Nisan 15 was significant and that always occurred on a full moon (both before and after A.D.359). Prior to A.D.359, Nisan 15 could fall no earlier than Abib 16--14 days after the first new (visible) moon (Abib 2) after the vernal equinox (Abib 1). After A.D.359, Nisan 15 could fall as early as Abib 1--the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

Christianity uses the same Babylonian lunar calendar to fix the date of Easter. Prior to A.D.359, Easter was fixed (?) on the first Sunday, after the first full moon, after the first visible new moon, after the vernal equinox--except, if the full moon fell on Sunday, then Easter was postponed until the next Sunday. After A.D.359, the rule for Easter was changed to the first Sunday, after the first full moon, after the vernal equinox--except, it the full moon fell on Sunday, then Easter was postponed until the next Sunday. The exception was due to the fact that if the full moon fell on Sunday, then that Sunday was the Jews passover, and the Christians did not want to observe their Easter on the same day as the Jews observed their passover. Therefore, Easter was postponed until the following Sunday! Remember 1 Corinthians 14:33? "...Yahveh...is not the author of confusion..." which is prima facie evidence that He did not institute the lunar calendar.

Think back to the year our Messiah was killed. The year was A.D. 30. If the first of Abib falls on the vernal equinox, the first of Nisan could fall anywhere from the 2nd of Abib to the 30th of Abib. I have a computer program called Calendar Magic. It can recreate calendars back to B.C. 4713 and forward to A.D.10,000. The program tells us that in the year A.D. 30, the vernal equinox occurred on March 20 (Abib 1). The astronomical new moon also occurred on March 20. That means that Nisan 1 occured on the visible new moon which occured on March 21 (which was Abib 2).

Twelve days later, the date is Abib 14, A.D. 30. It's the preparation day for Israel's Christian Passover. On the Babylonian/lunar calendar, it's Nisan 13, C.E. 30--the day before the Jews preparation day. On Israel's preparation day, the following Scriptural quotations are appropriate.

You know the rest of the story. Messiah went to the garden, was captured, and stood trial. The passover meal was complete. The preparation day was over--for Christian Israel.

Notice that the Jew's hadn't eaten their passover meal yet. Of course not. It was now early on Nisan 14, their preparation day. But it was Abib 15--Israel's Passover was completed. Abib and Nisan are NOT synonymous. As the story continues, Messiah was killed.

John 19:31 is another witness that it was Nisan 14--the Jews preparation day. But remember, The Messiah, an Israelite, had already eaten His Passover. Some argue that the meal The Messiah ate on the day in question was not the Passover meal. They instead, believe it was the Lord's Supper, or the Last Supper. You really can't argue with that. It certainly was the Lord's supper--just like the meal I ate last night was my supper--and the meal I eat tomorrow morning (Yahveh willing) will be my breakfast. You also cannot argue the fact that it was His last supper.

Baigent & Leigh, in their book entitled, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, make an astute observation on pages 135 and 136. They go on to say that:

Another group of people living in the same area, at the same time in history, were known as the Masada. Baigent & Leigh (supra) says of the Masada, in pertinent part, on page 216, as follows:

Other scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls provide additional evidence of a dual calendar system used in those days; a lunar calendar used by rabbinical Judaism, and a solar calendar used by most everyone else. The following is a small portion of said evidence.

It seems very clear to me, that at least two groups of people in the area at the time were using a solar calendar. I believe that the evidence available proves beyond any reasonable doubt that it was the passover meal He ate in that fateful year of A.D. 30. Remember, "...The Master saith...I will keep the passover..." (Matthew 26:18--emphasis added); "...when they killed the passover, His disciples said unto Him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" (Mark 14:12--emphasis added); "...they made ready the passover.¨ (Matthew 26:19--emphasis added.); "...The Master saith...I shall eat the passover with My disciples..." (Mark 14:14--emphasis added); "...He sat down with the twelve...they did eat..." (Matthew 26-20,21--emphasis added); "And as they were eating..." (Matthew 26:26--emphasis added); "And He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:" (Luke 22:15--emphasis added); "...I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:16); "And supper being ended..." (John 13:2--emphasis added); "He riseth from supper..." (John 13:4--emphasis added).

I've even heard some preachers admit He ate the Passover, even though the Jews hadn't eaten their passover yet. Since they obviously didn't understand that Abib and Nisan are not synonymous, they claim The Master ate His Passover early! Sorry, preacher--if I eat the Passover meal early--I break the Law. The timing is very specific. If He ate the Passover early--He broke the Law! And my Master is NOT a Law breaker! He ate it at the correct time in the month of Abib. The Jews ate theirs at their correct time in their month of Nisan. There's no discrepancy in the Gospels.

One of the best arguments against this being a passover meal has been overlooked. But in all fairness, I'll present it here. Remember, in Matthew 26:18, the Messiah told His disciples to "...Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with My disciples." (Emphasis added.) But back over in Deuteronomy 16:5, we were told "Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates (H8179--city), which Yahveh...giveth thee." (Emphasis added.)

But even this argument of not being allowed to eat the passover in the city, doesn't stand up against discoveries made at Qumran, the scene of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery. In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, on pages 198 and 199 we find the following:

Another argument against this being the Passover meal has its basis in the Gospel of John. Let's read that before presenting the argument.

The argument goes something like this: if it were truly Israel's Passover, it would have been an annual Sabbath, and since "buying" is prohibited on an annual Sabbath, The Master would not have told Judas to buy something on the Sabbath. Therefore, it could not have been the Passover. The proponents of this argument loose sight of the fact that the day of the Passover is not a Sabbath--the next day, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Sabbath. Regardless, their argument doesn't hold water.

Notice a couple of things here. In verse 27, The Masters words were, "...That thou doest, do quickly." (Emphasis added.) He did NOT instruct Judas to buy anything! But even if He did, that day was not a Sabbath--the next day was. And in verse 29, "...some of them THOUGHT...that Immanuel...had said...buy those things that we have need of against the feast..." (Emphasis added.) If they thought that, they knew it wasn't a Sabbath!

But, that doesn't compute in by brain. If I said, "that thou doest, do quickly," would you think I said, "buy those things that we have need of"? Also, there's no other mention of this conversation in any other part of the Scripture. i.e., no double witness pursuant to Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:16, to wit:

In a book entitled, The Story of the Bible, by Edgar J. Goodspeed, published in 1936, on pages 115 and 122 we find the following interesting quotation pertaining to the above Gospel of John.

Whether the apostle John wrote the Gospel bearing his name, or an elder in Ephesus--as Goodspeed suggests, you must choose whether to believe,

On a different subject now, there is a curse laid out in Isaiah 3:12 which states,

Keep this quotation/citation in mind as we go through a couple of more citations. First, we'll look at the Book of Job, chapter 38, verse 32.

Mazzaroth is the zodiac--all twelve signs. The zodiac is comprised of stars. Notice that this quotation refers to the stars (the lesser of the two great lights) as "...his..." Next, we'll look at the Book of Psalms, 104:19.

Notice that this quotation refers to the sun (the greater of the two great lights) as "...his..." The Ferrar Fenton version also refers to the moon as hers in this verse.

Remember Joseph's dream (in Genesis 37:9 & 10) wherein the sun represented his father (masculine), the moon represented his mother (feminine), and the eleven stars represented his eleven brothers (masculine)?

And in Jeremiah, the moon is referred to as "...the queen (feminine) of heaven..." on more than one occasion. To wit,

Plutarch stated in his De Iside et Osiride, vol. i, p. 414-6, that "(t)he moon...was also the symbol of the goddess Isis, the queen of heaven." In Egypt, Isis was both the mother and the wife of Osiris, a.k.a. Nimrod.

Notice that whenever gender is mentioned in a discourse about the sun, moon, and/or stars, the sun and stars are always referred to as the masculine gender, while the moon is always referred to as the feminine gender. With this in mind, let's look again at the curse mentioned in Isaiah 3:12.

Does the lunar (moon--"her"--"queen"--"feminine") calendar rule your feast dates? As a curse, do "...women rule over..." you? Are the lunar calendar proponents fulfilling the curse of Isaiah 3:12?

In the Book of Jubilees, we find the problem spelled out very clear when one uses the lunar calendar.

It is almost universally accepted (time to be suspect!) among Christians that a "prophetic year," or a "Biblical year" has 360 days. Even most of those who use the moon to calculate the feast days will agree that a "prophetic year" or a "Biblical year" has 360 days--contrary to the lunar calendar they use, which has either 354 days (12 months of alternating 29 and 30 days) or 384 days (13 months). I have yet to meet anyone who uses the lunar calendar who was able to explain that logic.

The Gregorian calendar is based on the earth's revolution around the sun which takes 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, or 365.2422 days per year. The question now begs to be asked, "Why does a prophetic/Biblical year have a different number of days than a year on the Gregorian calendar?" Which one is wrong? 360 and 365.2422 cannot both be correct.

I heard one fellow rationalize the above discrepancy by claiming that the earth was once probably in a 360 day orbit and an errant celestial body bumped the earth out of it's 360 day orbit and put it in it's current 365.2422 day orbit. Now the question needs to be asked, "Was the errant celestial body out of Yahveh’s control?" Or, "Did Yahveh put the earth in the wrong orbit, and use another celestial body to correct His error?" I can't buy that (il)logic. I think The Father put the earth right where He intended. I'm not sure, but Enoch may be a clue to this. I'll let you do the research on Genesis 5:21-24.

Also, if you've read anything about the Great Pyramid of Giza, you'll recognize the number 365.2422. That number (365.2422), multiples of that number, and fractions of that number were used extensively throughout the construction and engineering of that superstructure.

Where did we ever get the notion that a prophetic/Biblical year had 360 days? Most say that there is 1260 prophetic days mentioned in The Book of Daniel. They divide 1260 by the 30 days concocted in Genesis (remember 150 days divided by 5 months?). The quotient is 42 which agrees with the 42 prophetic months they claim is mentioned in The Book of Revelation 11:2 and 13:5. Therefore, the prophetic/Biblical year must have 360 days!

I've heard others say that a Biblical year has 360 days--12 months with 30 days per month. The Israelites then added 5 days at the end of the year to balance to the solar year. But, look what we find in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol IV, p. 988,

It was the Egyptian calendar with 12 months of 30 days (with 5 supplemental days)--not the Biblical/Israelite calendar of the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I've heard one propose that the Biblical calendar consisted of 6 months of 30 days each, then 2 supplemental days were added. Then 6 more months of 30 days each, and 3 supplemental days added for a total of 365 days! 1st Corinthians 14:33 comes to mind ("For Yahveh...is not the author of confusion..."). In neither of the above two proposals is the extra 5 hours 48 minutes and 46 seconds (which causes leap year) ever addressed!

Based on my research materials, Pope Gregory XIII, in A.D.1582, was the first in recent times to address the extra 5 hours 48 minutes and 46 seconds. To us, it is commonly referred to as leap year. Everybody I've asked, thought they knew the rule for leap year, when in actuality, nobody knew the rule! Here's Pope Gregory's rule:

Pope Gregory concluded that his new rule would keep the calendar "on course" for about 32,000 years. After that time, he reasoned, let someone else straighten it out!

There are approximately 14 different Hebrew or Greek words that have been translated as year, years, or yearly (year/s/ly) in The Scriptures. These same 14 different Hebrew or Greek words have also been translated into approximately 99 other words. For example, one of the 14 different Hebrew or Greek words translated year/s/ly in The Scriptures is the Hebrew word yom. But yom was also translated as day, time, weather, daily, remain, when, age, full year, life, season, space, while, full, in continuance, whole, etc.

Get the point? When you see yom, should The Scripture say day--or year--(or age, life or season)? If you agree to meet me in one yom from today, and I meant year, but you meant day, we'd have a problem, wouldn't we? If 14 words mean year, but they also mean 99 other words, what about the words for month, moon, season, day, hour, or minute?

In the Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, deluxe 2nd ed, 1983, "based upon the broad foundations laid down by Noah Webster..." on p. 115 of the appendix, we find the following entry. "In astronomical calculation, 30 degrees are called a sign, and there are, therefore, 12 signs in a circle." How does this relate to our topic?

Aren't there 12 signs in the zodiacal belt (Mazzaroth--pursuant to The Book of Job)?

Aren't there 12 months in a Biblical year?

Doesn't the zodiacal belt encircle the planets?

In a period of 365.2422 days, doesn't the earth make one complete circle about the sun?

Doesn't a circle have 360 degrees?

In a period of 365.2422 days, doesn't the earth travel 360 degrees?

The answer to the foregoing questions is yes. Now, watch this. If 30 days are said to be in a Scriptural prophetic month; multiplied by 12 months in a Scriptural year; then it might be properly said that there are 360 days in a Scriptural prophetic year.

If 30 degrees are in a sign; multiplied by 12 signs in a circle; then it might be properly said that there are 360 degrees in a circle.

Could it possibly be that: 30 degrees (not days) are in a Biblical month (30 degrees, or 1 sign per month--could each sign of the zodiac represent one Scriptural month?); multiplied by 12 months (or signs) in a Scriptural year; then it could properly be said that there are 360 degrees (not days) in a Scriptural year consisting of 365.2422 days?

Should day have been translated degrees in these portions of The Scripture--especially in light of what we learned about "yom"? Did day sometimes mean degree many years ago? If we accept "degrees" in the prophetic calendar, it now agrees with the Gregorian calendar. You see, a year on the Gregorian calendar is also 360 degrees consisting of 365.2422 days--and a month is about 30 degrees, varying in days because of the elliptic!

The above illustration is to show the earth's path around the sun. The "z" numbers represent the 12 signs of Mazzaroth. At the vernal equinox (ve) we enter sign #1, Aries. At the autumnal equinox (ae), we enter sign #7, Libra. Also note the summer solstice (ss) and the winter solstice (ws). Gregorian months are denoted by the first two letters of their name. It is interesting to me, that the sign for Libra is the balanced scales. The first half of the year (the first six signs) balance to the second half of the year (the second six signs). The earth has traveled approximately 180 degrees in its annual revolution, and has approximately 180 degrees to go to complete its revolution--the balanced scales!

I am of the opinion, that each time the earth enters into a new sign of Mazzaroth (the zodiac), we enter a new month. If this be true, the first Israelite month (Abib--not the Jewish Nisan) currently has approximately 31 days and corresponds roughly to March 20 through April 19 on the Gregorian calendar.

The second Israelite month (Zif--not the Jewish Jyar or Iyar) currently has approximately 31 days and corresponds to roughly April 20 through May 20 on the Gregorian calendar.

The third Israelite month currently has approximately 31 days and corresponds roughly to May 21 through June 20 on the Gregorian calendar.

The fourth Israelite month currently has approximately 32 days and corresponds roughly to June 21 through July 22 on the Gregorian calendar.

The fifth Israelite month currently has approximately 31 days and corresponds roughly to July 23 through August 22 on the Gregorian calendar.

The sixth Israelite month currently has approximately 31 days and corresponds roughly to August 23 through September 22 on the Gregorian calendar.

The seventh Israelite month (Ethanim--not the Jewish Tisri) currently has approximately 30 days and corresponds roughly to September 23 through October 22 on the Gregorian calendar.

The eighth Israelite month (Bul--not the Jewish Chesvan) currently has approximately 31 days and corresponds roughly to October 23 through November 22 on the Gregorian calendar.

The ninth Israelite month currently has approximately 29 days and corresponds roughly to November 23 through December 21 on the Gregorian calendar.

The tenth Israelite month currently has approximately 29 days and corresponds roughly to December 22 through January 19 on the Gregorian calendar.

The eleventh Israelite month currently has approximately 30 days and corresponds roughly to January 20 through February 18 on the Gregorian calendar.

And, the twelvth Israelite month currently has approximately 29 or 30 days (depending on what we now call leap year) and corresponds roughly to February 19 through March 19 on the Gregorian calendar.

The total number of days in each month were subject to change as well due to the procession of the equinox. It completes its course once in every 25,800 years. The total number of days in a month were irrelevant to the Israelites. They didn't have a mortgage payment to make on the 30th. There are no commands from Yahveh to do something, or abstain from doing something relative to the total number of days in a month or the end of the month. How did they know when to add a day for leap year? They didn't know--they didn't care! For anyone counting, when Aries didn't show up on the day expected, it must have been leap year. What difference did it make?

Due to the procession of the equinox, during the time of the flood, the 2nd month contained 31 days, the 3rd month contained 30 days, the 4th month contained 31 days, the 5th month contained 29 days, and the 6th month contained 29 days. That totals 150 days in 5 months.

Ancient Israel looked at the stars and knew what month they were in. They didn't add 5 days at the end of the year; they didn't add 3 days after 180 then add 2 days after another 180; they didn't have 354 days in this year and 384 days next year, as in the lunar calendar; they looked at the stars--the lesser light--and they KNEW!

In his Companion Bible, E. W. Bullinger [(1837-1913) you'd use initials too, if your name was Ethelbert William J] tells us in pertinent part in Appendix 12, which is referred to in his notes on Genesis 1:16, that:

For an in depth study into the Mazzaroth, the serious student may want to read The Witness of the Stars by E. W. Bullinger, or The Glory of the Stars by E. Raymond Capt.

According to Dr. James Strong, the predominate word that was translated into the word year was the Hebrew word #8141 shaneh pronounced shaw-neh', and it was used to denote "...a revolution of time..." i.e., the earth's revolution around the sun. It was NOT used to denote 12 (sometimes 13) revolutions of the moon around the earth. It was NOT used to denote "a number of days."

Let's take a quick multiple choice test. Which of the following answers, best describes a year?

Answer: "d)" all of the above, that is a), b), and c), best describe a year. Why? Because it takes Mercury 88 days to make a revolution around the sun; it takes the earth 365+ days to make a revolution around the sun; it takes Mars 687 days to make a revolution around the sun; each of which is one year.

A year is "...a period of time occupied by any planet in making one complete revolution around the sun." (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed, 1983, based upon the broad foundations laid down by Noah Webster, p.2118.) Notice it does NOT say 12 (sometimes 13) periods of time occupied by any moon in making a revolution around a planet.

A year is NOT correctly defined as a number of days--although there are a number of days in a year. Just as a year is NOT correctly defined as a number of hours, minutes, or seconds--although there are a number of hours, minutes, or seconds in a year. And a year is NOT correctly defined as a number of revolutions of a moon around a planet.

Dr. Strong also tells us that H8141 comes from H8138, shanah, pronounced shaw-naw'. He says it came from a primitive root which meant "...to fold, i.e. duplicate...double... repeat, return, do the second time." After the earth travels from Aries to Libra (remember, the balanced scales), the first 180 degrees, doesn't shanah describe the equinox--or what the earth does traveling from Libra back to Aries--the second 180 degrees?--"...to fold, i.e. duplicate...double...repeat, return, do the second time."

A Biblical prophetic year and a Gregorian year both have 360 degrees. A Biblical prophetic month and a Gregorian month both have 30 degrees. Once again (in my mind at least), the Scriptures prove to be accurate!

I use the vernal equinox to determine the first day of the first month of the year, and I use the autumnal equinox to determine the first day of the seventh month of the year. An acquaintance of mine accused me of starting the solar year 4 days late. He said the REAL vernal equinox occurs on March 16th, not the 20th. He also said the REAL autumnal equinox occurs on September 27th, not the 23rd.

His logic was, that sunrise and sunset were exactly 12 hours apart on the days he used (3/16 and 9/27). He said, on the days I use (3/20 and 9/23), the days are 7 to 10 minutes longer than the night. How did he know this? Why he looked on his calendar and noted the times of sunrise and sunset, of course!

Now this sounds like a logical argument, since "equinox" comes from two Latin words, aequus meaning equal, and nox meaning night. However, refraction plays a big part in this. In the Encyclopedia Americana, 1959 ed, vol. VIII, pp. 519-520, we find the following entry under the word day.

In the same reference, under the heading refraction, vol. XXIII, p. 311, we find the following entry.??

My acquaintance's visible equinox, as opposed to the astronomical equinox, is analogous to the Jew's visible new moon v. the astronomical new moon. Such opinions bring to mind the following:

If I were to ask you, "When is the end of the year?" you would probably reply December 31. And you would be correct if we were speaking of the Gregorian calendar. If my business fiscal year started July 1, would not the end of my fiscal year be June 30? Of course it would! The end of the year is just before the beginning of the year. A year can start at any point in time. One revolution (of the earth around the sun) later, would be the end of that year and the beginning of the next. Consider your birthday. On your next birthday, you will be one year--a revolution of the earth around the sun--older than you were on your last birthday.

Here's the question. If the Biblical year starts on the vernal equinox, that is March 20, when is the end of the Biblical year. The answer would be--March 19, right? Most prudent people would agree. Keeping that in mind, let's look at the Feast of Tabernacles.

Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy 16 refer to the Feast of Tabernacles. This feast is also known as the Feast of Booths. In Exodus 23:14-16 and Exodus 34-22, it is also known as the Feast of Ingathering. It's not a contradiction. It's kind of like Independence Day versus The Forth of July--synonymous terms. Let's look at these last two citations.

Modern day Israelites who observe the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Ingathering always observe it in the fall. Didn't we just agree (above), that the end of the Biblical year was March 19? Didn't we just read in the two citations above that the subject feast is to be observed in the end of the year? Why do we observe it in the fall, instead of March 19?

Here's the answer. Remember, like your birthday, you can start a year at any time. Our Father told us to observe the Feast of Tabernacles starting on the 14th day of the 7th month. One year (revolution) later, on the 14th day of the 7th month, it's the end of one year (H8141--a completed revolution of the earth around the sun) AND the beginning of the next year.

The word end in Exodus 34:22 is H8622 tquwphah, pronounced tek-oo-faw'. According to Dr. Strong, tquwphah was used to denote a revolution, i.e., of the sun, course of time, circuit. In other words, when you start your feast, 360 degrees (or 365+ days) later, you will start your feast next year. And every 360 degree revolution of the earth thereafter, you will start to observe the same feast. Now that is order--precise order. You don't observe it with 12 (but sometimes 13) revolutions of the moon.

The World Wide Church of God published a list of feast dates from 1986 through 1993 inclusive. For those eight years, their feast of tabernacles was observed on 10/18, 10/8, 9/26, 10/14, 10/4, 9/23, 10/12, and 9/30, respectively. Now that is disorder--and not yearly, as that word is used in the Scriptures.

If you were born on the 14th day of the 7th month (corresponding to October 6th on the Gregorian calendar), would you have observed your birthday from 1986 through 1993 inclusive on 10/18, 10/8, 9/26, 10/14, 10/4, 9/23, 10/12, and 9/30, respectively? Of course you wouldn't--it's confusing, to say the least! Then why would anybody observe the feasts in such a ridiculous manner?

Of course, the World Wide Church of God uses the Babylonian Lunar calendar.

(H0894 Babel {baw-bel'}Babel or Babylon = confusion [by mixing].) Using Our Father's solar timetable, anyone can calculate His Feast days. Using the Babylonian Lunar calendar, the person or organization hosting a feast, needs, of necessity, to pre-publish the dates to eliminate confusion. "For Yahveh...is not the author of confusion..." (1 Corinthians 14:33.) Just as an aside, the Latin word for moon is the feminine luna, as in lunatic!

In the Israelite community, much confusion reigns regarding the dates of the Feast days. I tried to rationalize in my mind why this confusion reigns. Perhaps the answer can be found in YHWH's Perfect Calendar, by Charles Willis Dodge, 2nd ed., July 1988, p.4. ??

What's the bottom line? I don't think it could be simpler. The day on which the vernal (spring) equinox occurs is the first day of the first month. From that day, count the appropriate number of days to determine the spring feast dates on the Gregorian calendar. The day on which the autumnal (fall) equinox occurs is the first day of the seventh month. From that day, count the appropriate number of days to determine the fall feast dates on the Gregorian calendar. What system could be less confusing?

Well Bruno, the above is my little box of evidence. You now possess more knowledge than I, for you now know my little box of evidence, as well as your little box of evidence; while I still only have knowledge of my little box of evidence. I hope the information contained above has been a blessing to you.

As always, I invite, and indeed welcome any comments you may have pertaining to the foregoing information. You may send your comments to the publisher, whose address will follow.

Also, as usual, I will not acknowledge authorship of this letter. I know my adversaries will make unkind and sarcastic remarks about that statement. But, we know that an author's name often lends or detracts credence, to or from certain facts--and I want the above evidence to stand or fall on it's own merit. I am in full agreement with the statement on page vii in the Preface to the Companion Bible which says in pertinent part, "...this Edition is not associated with the name of any man; so that its usefulness may neither be influenced nor limited by any such consideration; but that it may commend itself on its own merits..." And now, I will leave you with the following citations.

Amended 3 December, A.D.1997