The Book End Calendar Model by Daniel Gregg THE QUESTION: THE QUESTION: Does the lunar month begin at the conjunction or the sighting of the first crescent

The Book End Calendar Model by Daniel Gregg

THE QUESTION: Does the lunar month begin at the conjunction or the sighting of the first crescent moon?

Critical Review of

This is a review of William Sanford’s presentation. My remarks will appear in these blue boxes

. I have added a few slides of my own, and deleted some from the original. I have removed the animations from the original. This is a fair use critical

commentary on a competing religious opinion.

http://www.torahtimes.org/










Summary of key errors and their relevance to the commentary:

1. Misunderstanding the Genesis day . Understanding this correctly is helpful, but not critical to our case against the book end teaching.

2. The claim that ancient historians support the conjunction method. The opposite is true.

3. Claim that the year begins with Aviv 1. It begins with the equinox.4. Original meaning of the word Adar is incorrect.5. The claim that a conjunction based calendar does not have 29 day

months, and that it has 31 day months. I prove this false in detail, and show how the data presented is miscalculated.

6. Philo of Alexandria is taken out of context.7. Claim that the Book End Model is not a new Calendar. It is best described

as a method that arbitrarily places day 1 of the month between the conjunction and the sighted moon to make the 14th or 15th days of the month fall on the full moon. It will be shown that the assumption they must is incorrect.

8. Scientific ignorance about the orbit of the moon assuming that half the orbit is traversed by the moon in half the time.

9. Claim that the Hillel II calendar is before AD 359. The sighted moon was used before AD 359.

10. Misinterpretation of 1Sam 20.

What is at stake? What is at stake is the importance of following and

observing all the “moed” or appointed times on the appointed days correctly as commanded in Torah by Yahuwah in Leviticus 23.

We know from scripture that Father’s ways of Measuring Time are different from man’s current ways of calculating time.

A day does not end and a new day begin at 12 midnight, but after sunset. (and there was evening, then morning the first day) If a day is divided by darkness, then why not a month?

A new year doesn’t begin on Jan 1st, but on the first day of the month of Abib. (Exodus 12:2 You are to begin your calendar with this month; it will be the first month of the year for you) The Aramaic word Adar (12th mo) means “darken eclipse” which implies the new year comes out of darkness into light, the way a day ends and begins, so, why not the same for a month?

Each month does not begin according to the Gregorian calendar calculated by the earth revolving around the sun, but by the rotation of the moon around the earth.

Gen 1:14 And Elohim said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons, (moed) days and years…

Beresheet has the first definition of “day” as “light” (dawn to dusk), and the second definition is a calendar day from daybreak to daybreak, exactly opposite what Jewish tradition claims. The Famous Hebrew Scholar Franz Delitzsch, so loved by Messianic Jews, and respected by other non-messianic Jewish scholars said in his Genesis commentary that the calendar day there beings with the dawn and ends with the dawn. Likewise, the Jewish Scholar Jacob Milgrom, editor of the JPS Torah Commentary says the day in Beresheet begins with the daybreak and ends with the daybreak. However, Sabbaths, and feast days are reckoned from sunset to sunset.

The text translates from Hebrew, “Then there was setting, then there was daybreak” after Elohim had finished creating during the daylight part of the day, i.e. the setting ends the day, and the daybreak brings us to the beginning of the

next day. The word בFר � .”means “set” or “setting,” also “grow dark” or “sunsetע� Obviously there was no sun in Ber. 1:3-5, but light had to be created first before there could be a setting going into the following night. There can be no setting in the night before the first day because there is no light to set. The natural chronological order of Beresheet is that Elohim creates in the literal day, then there is setting (followed by night), then there is daybreak , one day, and this ending daybreak ends the first calendar day before creation begins on the second literal day.








Never does Scripture say that Aviv 1 is the new year day. Aviv 1 is only day 1 of the first month.

The word “calendar” in the text here is a mistranslation. The Hebrew says ים KדMח Oאש� ש� .(head of the months) ר��

Yes, it is the first month of the year, but for what defines the “year” in Scripture we have to look elsewhere, to Ber. 1:14. The sun defines the year, not the moon.








Jastrow’s Aramaic Lexicon for the root has, Adar, “1. to cut off, surround, isolate,…to distinguish, 2. to darken, 3. to strip.” and of the month, Adar, “the cloudy.” The Aramaic lexicon relates it to the Hebrew root “Adar” which means “glorious.” The probability is very great that the presentation here is in error. In this day and age of outright deception, careless mistakes, or negligence, we cannot afford to trust such statements against the published literature without full citation and source, especially when it is being used to prove a point. Nowhere in my lexical sources can I find “eclipse,” and while darken occurs, it is by no means the obvious translation, when the Hebrew means “glorious.” I do not disagree that the year begins when the year is shifting from dark to light. I disagree with the method of trying to demonstrate it.

The Conjunction looks like this

The new moon would be here. It has been omitted from the drawing.

This is a modern definition of “new moon” by modern astronomers. It is not the ancient Scriptural definition which calls the “light” of the moon the “sign” for the set times. The ancients used separate terms for the new moon and the conjunction.


Conjunctionist or Crescentist who is right and who is wrong?In the Messianic Faith movement today we have primarily two different belief systems on when a lunar month should end and when the lunar month should start. The Conjunctionists believe that on the precise solar day that the Conjunction occurs on, should be proclaimed as both the last day of the old month and the 1st day of the new month.The Crescentists believe that on the evening the Crescent moon is sighted in Israel in the sky after sunset, that the count for the first day of the lunar month should begin forward from that evening, thus proclaiming the 1st day of the new month.It is the purpose of this presentation to prove that both theories miss the mark by isolating one another and leaving out critical pieces of the puzzle in an effort to build their doctrine. We will present both sides of this issue and their faults and how the “BOOKEND MODEL” uses both the Conjunction and the sighting of the 1st Crescent to determine the correct 1st day of the month. Please do not considered this to be a new calendar.

The proper non biased term is “sighted moon” for “first sighting of the new moon.” We realize that the connotation of the word “crescent” is unfairly tied to Islam. The term “crescentist” has to be regarded as a mild form of name calling.

The last day of a month is either the 29th or the 30th day. The first day of a month cannot be both the first day of the month and the last day of the old month. I know of no calendar system that actually believes such a contradiction, neither the Rabbinic calendar nor a pure conjunction based one.

Conjunctionist or Crescentist who is right and who is wrong?In the Messianic Faith movement today we have primarily two different belief systems on when a lunar month should end and when the lunar month should start. The Conjunctionists believe that on the precise solar day that the Conjunction occurs on, should be proclaimed as both the last day of the old month and the 1st day of the new month.The Crescentists believe that on the evening the Crescent moon is sighted in Israel in the sky after sunset, that the count for the first day of the lunar month should begin forward from that evening, thus proclaiming the 1st day of the new month.It is the purpose of this presentation to prove that both theories miss the mark by isolating one another and leaving out critical pieces of the puzzle in an effort to build their doctrine. We will present both sides of this issue and their faults and how the “BOOKEND MODEL” uses both the Conjunction and the sighting of the 1st Crescent to determine the correct 1st day of the month. Please do not considered this to be a new calendar.

We shall see that this attempt to make a middle ground is impossible with the post 359 AD Hillel II Calendar. Only the sighted new moon has historical support in biblical times.

This is a new calendar, and I will prove later on that it is eclectic. Most often it makes the first day of the month one of the days between the conjunction day and the first sighted new moon day. Sometimes it agrees with the sighted moon day. Not once in the 14 month example given by the author does his day one of the month fall on the conjunction day, and only 3 times does his day 1 fall on the sighted moon day.

This issue has separated believers solely because of the importance of timing when to celebrate Yahuwah’s feast days.

We all agree the timing to celebrate the moed is very important and must be resolved if believers are to dwell together in unity.

The Bible itself does not give any instruction as to what exactly, should constitute the "new moon”, so let us keep an open mind and look at all the puzzle parts that we have and see if we can fit them all together for a clear picture and solve the riddle.

If we try to draw from Biblical history as to how Israel determined the first day of the month, it can be difficult but not impossible, because neither historians or the bible has been completely clear on the subject. There is certainly NO Biblical text mentioning the Crescent Moon as the beginning of the month, but we will take the WITNESSES we have, and use the spiritual discernment we have today to confirm what is truth. One witness is the Hebrew word Chodesh.

The Hebrew word Chodesh for MONTH or New Moon comes from the root word Chadash which means to be renewed, or repaired. The word chodesh has nothing to do with sighting the crescent. At the sighting of the first crescent, the moon has been waxing up to 1½ to 2 solar days from the timing of the Conjunction therefore the time of its renewal has passed.

This is not completely true. It separates because only one of these methods works with Messiah’s death and resurrection, and only one of these methods works for his birth. Only one of these methods confirms the testimony of Messiah in the correct years for his birth and passion. Conjunction methods do not work with year of Messiah’s birth (2 BC) nor the year of his death (AD 34). We will see that this book end method is too eclectic to be considered. The errant calendars were introduced partly to confuse the truth about Messiah’s fulfillments.

This is not the highest goal. The truth comes first, and recognizing the truth is what causes unity between two parties. The truth is that division is necessary from the side that follows a calendar that does not confirm the testimony of Messiah. Yeshua was born on Tishri 1, 2 BC according to the sighted moon and the Revelation 12:1-2 synchronism. And he died on the 4th day of the week and rose on the Sabbath according to the sighted moon method in AD 34 (the only year to work with Daniel 9’s sabbatical years).






Beresheet 1:14 says that the “lights” are to be signs. Thus, unless the light is visible to humans, it cannot be a sign. This rules out the conjunction, and the days in between the conjunction and the sighted moon advocated by the book end teaching.

Are we open minded? It seems that adding incorrect statement to incorrect statement is a good way to keep honest minds from recognizing the truth. The enemy always claims to be open minded, but then proceeds to close them.






This is not true with respect to the historians. Both Jewish and Christian historical sources recognize that the new moon was sighted. The conjunction is not part of any historical method before 359 AD. There are always lone wolves that contradict the norm or an uneducated source here and there, but it is critical to tell the truth about what the norm is!

The Bible is completely clear in the simple statement that the “light” is a sign for the set times. So this is literally not true either. When the light first reappears, then the sign for the first day of the month is given. I have taken this text at face value, and have been able to confirm all the dates Scripture gives with the sighted new moon in cases where a month day and year are given.

There is certainly no text making the conjunction the new moon day either in so many words. Gen. 1:14 confirms the traditional method of sighting, and not the conjunction method.






The moon is renewed when it has new visible light that can be seen by people as a sign. The old moon looses its light for several days, but it is not renewed until it receives new visible light. If someone wants to say the renewal process starts at the conjunction, then we say that it is not completely renewed until it can be seen by the human eye in the evening. In the Scripture, kings often have accession years. An accession year is the year they begin to rule, but they do not count the accession year as year 1 of their rule, out of respect for the last king. They wait until Tishri 1, and then after Tishri 1 they count the first year of their reign, even though they began to reign before Tishri 1. It is possible to view the renewal process in this manner. The visible new moon after sunset is like Tishri 1; we count the first day of the month after it.

But this is inconsistent with Beresheet 1:14. It is an ad hoc definition. The Hebrew word hadash itself does not have such a technical meaning, and our presenters appear to be confusing the issue with the modern SECULAR definition of new moon.

The Crescentists and Conjunctionists have separated to each side of the pendulum on the calendar issue, each side taking pieces of truth, but neither side using all the pieces at their disposal. Each side is guilty of leaving parts of the puzzle out. Lets keep in mind that we live in a time where the gift of knowledge has increased substantially, just as prophesied in Daniel 9, and our Messiah promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us into ALL truth, and I believe He desires to do that.We live in a marvelous time period when we are all witnessing first hand a divine move of the Holy Spirit worldwide that is causing believers to finally understand who we are in Messiah; part of the common wealth of the House of Israel, as we look upon a tremendous enlightenment that is falling on our brethren, the House of Judah, as they come into believing in Y'shua as the Messiah in vast numbers never seen before.All this is not mere coincidence. It is divine providence as we are getting ready to return to the land and fulfill prophecies our forefathers have been waiting to see for thousands of years.

I first ran into the BOOK END Model via Andrew Gabriel Roth. He teaches that the person/soul of Yeshua is not Yahweh, thus denying Messiah is Yahweh. This is in the notes of the AENT version. Having many years experience translating the New Testament in agreement with Hebrew thought, I have to say there is relatively little Hebraic about the actual translation of this version except a cosmetic Jewish appeal involving names.

After checking the notes of AENT, I can confirm that Roth has a major section explaining this very book end model. So far, this is the only published source I know of the model, other than 119 ministries. It appears that Roth has priority on 119 ministries, so I can only conclude from as current as info as I can get that the model was created under the influence of a teacher who denies the Deity of Messiah. A little checking in the net, shows that the author of this presentation is closely associated with Andrew Roth.

I said all that to remind us that in order to solve this riddle on the Hebraic Calendar, we not only need to gather accurate pieces from the past, but we need to take those puzzle pieces and match them up with the knowledge we have been given today and what the spirit is revealing to us now, in our generation, and see what picture comes into focus.The final answer to this riddle should bring ALL the witnesses we have on this puzzle to the table to fit them tightly together, both past, and present, leaving nothing out. What are those witnesses we call pieces of the puzzle? We have the witness of the book of Enoch, and the witness of the historian Philo. We have the Torah, and we have both math and astronomy of today.

The book of Enoch is a pious fraud. It is likely that the quotes from this book were edited into the book of Jude by early Christians who mistakenly took this book to be canonical. Also, this book promotes a calendar that ignores the moon completely, having 4 quarters to the year composed of a 30 day month, a 30 day month, followed by a 31 day month. The name for this calendar is the Essene Calendar or Qumran Calendar. It does not follow the moon at all. It appears that anyone who would try to use it as back up for another calendar method is simply confused or trying to confuse you.

Well get to how he was taken out of context later.

A Brief History Lesson from Andrew RothThe Persians set up the zodiac based on 4 main stars in 3000 BCE and the Zodiac was the standard tracker of the solar year--in fact the most accurate measure of the year available until we could measure time from the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.Meton developed the 19 year lunar cycle adapted by the Rabbinic calendar in 432 BCE. Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes in 128 BCE. Aristarchus of Samos, wrote that the sun was the center of the solar system 2000 years before Copernicus. Eratosthenes accurately calculated the earth shape and circumference around 250 BCE. And Ptolemy had his masterpiece on astronomy, the Almagest, as an ancient bestseller whose accuracy would not be superseded until Newton's "Principia".Where were all these classics? IN THE LIBRARY AT ALEXANDRIA--PHILO's home town. Continued…

The flood was in 2483 BC. Were there any Persians around? No. The Mazzaroth is the proper Hebrew term, and could have been the work of some pre flood patriarch, say Enoch, but there is no proof who started it.

The idea that measuring time from the center of the Milky Way improved time over tracking the sun and moon is pure bunkum.

A Brief History Lesson from Andrew RothThe Persians set up the zodiac based on 4 main stars in 3000 BCE and the Zodiac was the standard tracker of the solar year--in fact the most accurate measure of the year available until we could measure time from the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.Meton developed the 19 year lunar cycle adapted by the Rabbinic calendar in 432 BCE. Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes in 128 BCE. Aristarchus of Samos, wrote that the sun was the center of the solar system 2000 years before Copernicus. Eratosthenes accurately calculated the earth shape and circumference around 250 BCE. And Ptolemy had his masterpiece on astronomy, the Almagest, as an ancient bestseller whose accuracy would not be superseded until Newton's "Principia".Where were all these classics? IN THE LIBRARY AT ALEXANDRIA--PHILO's home town. Continued…

The Rabbinic Calendar did not exist prior to AD 359 with Hillel II. At first I thought the sentence was badly punctuated, but then looking further into the presentation I see the author does wish to redact that calendar before AD 359.

The worlds greatest bastion of Greek thinking! Where is the Hebrew thought? I only say this because Andrew Roth and his followers promote Hebrew thought over Greek thought so much. It is refreshing to see that Greeks could do some thinking!

Philo read all these things I mention. He is the only Jew to be well versed both in Hebrew mysticism and priestly secrets that he so frequently alludes to AND the best of the Greek knowledge which is itself derived partly from Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian systems before it.Basically even pre-civilization stellar observances of polar stars would have suggested a practical 360 day year which we can track in the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt and elsewhere. The 360 day year with leap months at the end of 6 years was done by the Persians. The Persians and Babylonians both anciently inter-calculated the years and tracked the equinoxes and conjunctions. So did Egypt, which had 12 months 30 days each with 5 "between the year days" and a floating system that took 1460 years to balance by the Sothis (Sirius) star.The Babylonians and the Persians were also the source of the "Magi"--Zoroastrian priests who tracked the star of Bethlehem otherwise known as Jupiter, but that's a long story. Cont…

We will see when we look at the Philo quotes and discuss the astronomy, that Philo states some things that do not agree with the fundamental facts of lunar astronomy.

But there is no evidence the actual year was ever this long, not even the data from Noah’s flood. The flood year had 4 30 day months and 1 29 day month, which using inclusive counting, from the 17th day of the 2nd month to the 17th day of the 7th month add up to 150 days. The present lunar cycle often has 4, 30 day months in a row. This is a side issue.

So even if you could make an argument that ancient Israel was the dumbest of all people--simple farmers who couldn't track stars and what not--they were held captive by nations who imposed their calendar on them that they would have gotten used to. That's what Josephus and Philo both tell us, "for thus they learned to order their months from Egypt"--as Josephus says when dating the flood.Julius Caesar burned the library in Alexandria by accident about 40 BCE, but he re-stocked it from copies at Rome and Philo read all these things I mention. So now Philo gets his chance to put ALL THIS STUFF together and what do we get? Exactly what we see in the writings he has left us, which matches perfectly with Biblical math.Guesswork? Hardly! Easy? Far from it. Words from Andrew Roth author of the Aramaic English New Testament

It is not hard to observe the spring Tequfah when the sun sets in the exact west, nor the visible new moon. Israel did not need to be dependent on these nations.

119 ministries uses similar language, and by so doing, shows their dependence on Andrew Roth. There is a common thread of reasoning here, though I have not determined its extent.

It appears we are going to stake a lot on just one man’s writings?!

“The physical body of Y’shua and his soul are not YHWH, but Y’shua made himself subject to YHWH in all respects” (pg. 1052, AENT). In true Nestorian fashion Roth separates the Messiah (Spirit) from the person of Yeshua. Roth would say that Messiah is YHWH, but not the person of Yeshua.

If you look directly across from the Full Moon you find both the Ending and the Beginning Point of the moons lunar cycle. This is called the Astronomical NEW MOON. This cycle completes

between 29 and 30 solar days which averages 29.53 each month.

A modern term, not a biblical term.

That the biblical new moon must be symmetrical to an exact full moon is an assumption. What the author says here is true using modern definitions of the terms, but watch for the switch of modern ideas back into the ancient usages. We cannot assume they are the same. If we do, then the fallacy is called an anachronism.

When the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun and all 3 are lined up, this is called the Conjunction, because two celestial

bodies are conjoining at their closest points. There are 28 Moonrises and Moonsets during this complete cycle (4 sets of 7).

This only happens at the rare times of solar eclipses. Ordinarily the moon’s orbit is inclined 5 degrees to the ecliptic, such that normally there is no “line up”.

Furthermore, a modern new moon is geocentrically determined, so it may not be symmetrical to Jerusalem at all. In fact, it usually is not. If symmetry is to be a principle to live and die by, then why did they not choose Jerusalem to make the line up. The notion that symmetry is the only beauty is a Greek idea. Asymmetrical variety is also beautiful. In fact the two sides the human body have asymmetry as well as symmetry. The number of days in a month and the number of months in a year display variations. The notion that the timing of the full moon should vary more than one’s notion of proper symmetry is a philosophical assumption. It is not an argument for the way things are or should be.

When the “true” Full Moon is completely 100% FULL of light, just like the conjunction when the moon appears dark, it only lasts for a moment, although it seems to last much longer. This happens on average, on the 14th and 15th solar day, on the lunar calendar.

What the author is aiming at is to get the viewer to think that symmetry between the full moon and the new moon is required. It was never required according to the historical definition of the new moon. The desire for symmetrical perfection of two sides of a thing is Greek philosophical idea of perfection. This is because the Greek notion of perfection does not allow variation. For if something is perfect, then the only possible variation would toward imperfection. The Great Church theologian Thomas Aquinas used this sort of Greek influenced reasoning when discussing the immutability of God.

The moment the moon moves OFF the conjunction, a crescent immediately starts to form. This waxing moon cannot be seen from earth as it rises and sets with the sun for up to 18 hours

without modern infrared cameras because of the suns brightness.

But really what counts is how they observed it in Messiah’s time, which is when a human could see it.

The 1st solar day the Conjunction happens on does not affect the calendar immediately because that day must finish its 24 hours at sundown. The following solar day is recorded as the 1st day on the lunar calendar, unless the Conjunction happens “after” sunset.

This rule is not clearly stated. It appears to mean that the first day of the Book End Calendar is never on the conjunction day, which is consistent with the 14 month example given by the author later on. The “unless” exception is impossible to figure out because all conjunctions are after sunset.

The Conjunction is not to be confused with a lunar eclipse. This takes place when the Full Moon is on the opposite side of the

earth and passes through the earth’s shadow in perfect alignment and the earth’s shadow blocks out the moon for several minutes.

Our author has confused the duration of a lunar eclipse with a solar eclipse. A lunar eclipse lasts several hours on average. Only a solar eclipse is limited to minutes.

When the Conjunction is lined up perfectly on the ecliptic plane a solar eclipse is caused during the day, when what we call a “Dark Moon” occurs blocking out the sunlight during the day by casting its shadowy foot print on parts the earth, but not the whole earth.

And this is actually the only time the sun moon and earth are “lined up,” and indeed only where the path of totality goes. If one looks at eclipse tracks mapped onto the earth over a period of centuries, there will be many asymmetries to observe.

During the Conjunction the moon appears to be in darkness but the reason the moon cannot be seen from earth for up to 36 hours is because it is hidden by the brightness of the sun, as it rises and sets in unison with the sun during the course of up to 3 solar days.

I have to add to this: the moon also has to reflect light to the observer to be seen without being washed away by the direct sunlight.

If we suppose that some light comes from the moon that cannot be seen by the naked eye, then we have to consider the Bible’s method of starting the reigns of kings (by way of analogy). Kings often had an accession year when they began to reign, but they did not count the first year until Tishri 1. So there was a period where they were reigning, but it was not counted as year 1. Likewise, it can be conceded that the moon can give some light before day 1 of the month, and that like a accession year this time is simply not counted.

NASA put on an Extreme Lunar Crescent Contest in 2007 and this was one of Martin Elsasser winning pictures taken in

Germany just over 4 hours after the Miracle of the Conjunction.

Infrared does not count. This picture has been converted to a greyscale a human can see. It should be completely black, or the same color as the background, as that is how it would look to a human. This can be treated like the accession year of a king. It is not counted as day 1.

The pictures were taken on a mountain in Austria and this is the special tracking equipment and infrared camera Martin used to

take the award winning pictures in 2007.

Ancient Israel did not have these. Neither did Messiah. Don’t you think that what was good enough for Yeshua should be sufficient for us?

Infrared is not visible to the human eye; it has to be electronically detected (like radio waves or microwaves) and then translated into a visible image by a computer.

In 2008 Martin set a world record in Munich Germany by taking pictures minutes before the Conjunction. This is the new special tracking equipment and baffle system, infrared camera he used.

Martin’s infrared picture taken minutes before the Conjunction just before the lunar month comes to an end. It is at the moment of the Conjunction on the Feast of Trumpets that the Messiah will return, raising the dead and catching up those who remain, with

Him.

I doubt Martin is Torah observant, but his is an interesting technical achievement with infrared radiation.

Martin took this 44 minutes after the Conjunction. The New Moon Crescent actually forms moments after the Conjunction. If this

were to take place after sunset, Israel time, an addition day would be added to the calendar before the 1st day could be declared.

Good for IR, but it is not visible light. Infrared is part of the electromagnetic spectrum just like radio waves and microwaves. Radio waves can also be used to detect the location of objects, but biblically they so not qualify as “light” that can serve a monthly sign. So why should IR.

Conjunctionists have a problem when starting and ending their month on the same day of the conjunction because:1. each lunar month must have either 29 or 30 days, no more, no less. By ending and starting their count from conjunction to conjunction, the lunar calendar will NEVER have 29 solar days but will oscillate between 30 and 31 solar days.2. a lunar year should only average 354.37 solar days. At the end of the year Conjunctionist will have on average 366 solar days. That is more days than the Gregorian’s calendar of 365! 3. their full moon will fall on average, either on the 15th or 16th of their month instead of the 14th and 15th. According to Philo the Full Moon should fall on Passover in the spring, on the 14th and on the 15th in the fall for Tabernacles. The Conjunctionist Full Moon would be on the 16th for Passover and the same for Tabernacles the full moon falling on their 16th of their month.4. this theory also ignores the purpose of sighting the Crescent, which historians declare was factual and had a purpose.

This point is completely false. A calendar based on the pure astronomical conjunction will have 29 and 30 days, and only 29 and 30 days. We use the sighted moon, but we should not make false claims about other systems.

This is also a false claim. A pure conjunction based calendar can be properly intercalated with a 13th month so that the year is 365 days, and 366 days only once every four or so years. We should not make false arguments about systems we disagree with.

If Philo meant this, then he is simply wrong. In no calendar system does the full moon fall consistently on the same day of the month at the same time of year. Philo can pick any day he wants, the 14th or the 15th. Sooner or later the full moon will fall on the other day that he did not pick.

The facts are only convenient when needed. The same historians would say that the “book end” model is not historical.

Figures below from the Conjunctionist Calendar for 2010. Please notice that their calendar NEVER has a full moon on the 14th but

only on the 15th and 16th and twice on the 17th and there is never a month with 29 solar days. This year also ends with 366 days.

Jan 30th F.M. (16th Shevat Full Moon F.M.) a 31 Day MonthFeb 28th F.M. (15th of Adar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMarch 30th F.M. (16th of Abib Passover F.M.) a 31 Day MonthApril 28th F.M. (15th Iyar F.M.) a 31 Day MonthMay 28th F.M. (15th Sivan F.M.) a 30 Day MonthJune 26th F.M. (15th Tamuz F.M.) a 30 Day MonthJuly 26th F.M. (16th Av F.M.) a 31 Day MonthAugust 24th F.M. (15th Elul F.M.) a 30 Day MonthSeptember 23rd F.M. (16th of Tishrei F.M.) a 30 Day MonthOctober 23rd F.M. (17th of Cheshvan F.M.) a 31 Day Month November 21st F.M. (16th of Kislev F.M.) a 30 Day MonthDecember 21st F.M. (17th of Tevet F.M.) a 31 Day Month

CJ DAY 2 Jan 16, 2010 CJ DAY 3 Jan 17, 2010CJ DAY 1 Jan 15, 2010

1 16

The full moon two weeks later, i.e. Jan 16 + 14 = Jan 30, with the day of the month filled in.

The conjunction was Jan 15th, 07:11 UT, and the next conjunction was Feb 14th, 02:51 UT. The number of days in Jan is 31-15+1 = 17. The number of days before the conjunction in Feb is 13. 17 + 13 = 30. So the month was 30 days long, and not 31 using the conjunction.




CJ DAY 2Feb 15,

2010CJ DAY 3 Feb 16, 2010CJ DAY 1 Feb 14, 2010

1 16

This is a mistake. It was the 16th.

The conjunction was Feb 14, 02:51, and the next conjunction was Mar 15, 21:01 UT. The number of days left in Feb is 28-14+1 = 15 (since it has 28 days this year/not a leap year). The days in March before the conjunction are 14. 15 + 14 = 29. By the conjunction method, this month is 29 days long.




CJ DAY 2 Mar 17, 2010 CJ DAY 3 Mar 18, 2010CJ DAY 1 Mar 16, 2010

1 15

This is a mistake. It should say 15.

Conjunction: Mar 15, 21:01 UT. Next Conjunction Apr 14, 12:29 UT. Number of days in March 31-15+1 = 17. Number of days before conjunction in Apr = 13. 17 + 13 = 30. Once again, the claim that a pure conjunction method cannot match 29/30 day months is false.




CJ DAY 2 Apr 15, 2010 CJ DAY 3 Apr 16, 2010CJ DAY 1 Apr 14, 2010

1

15

Conjunction: Apr 14, 12:29 UT, next conjunction. May 14, 01:04 UT. Day in Apr. 30-14+1 = 17. Days in May before conj. 13. 17 + 13 = 30. Again, the 31 figure is wrong.




CJ DAY 2May 15,

2010CJ DAY 3

May 16, 2010

CJ DAY 1May 14,

2010

1

15

O.k. I am only giving results now. This month is 29 days using the conjunction method. Follow the link to the new moon tables if you wish to double check me.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases2001.html




CJ DAY 2June 12,

2010CJ DAY 3

June 13, 2010

CJ DAY 1June 11,

2010

1 16

CJ DAY 4

This is a mistake. Should say 16th.

For once the month length is correct!





CJ DAY 1 Jul 12, 2010 CJ DAY 2 Jul 13, 2010

1 15

CJ DAY 3

Another mistake. Should be day 15

This month is 29 days.





CJ DAY 1 Aug 10, 2010 CJ DAY 2 Aug 11, 2010

1 16

CJ DAY 3

Another Mistake! Should say 16th.

This month is 29 days using the conjunction method. Follow the link to the new moon tables if you wish to double check me.





CJ DAY 1 Sep 8, 2010 CJ DAY 2 Sep 9, 2010

1 16

CJ DAY 4 Sep 10, 2010 CJ DAY 5

Correct!





CJ DAY 2 Oct 8, 2010

1

CJ DAY 2 Oct 9, 2010 CJ DAY 3

16

The 17th is a mistake. It should be the 16th. 30 days by the

conjunction method.





Should say 16th .

29 days by the conjunction method.

CJ DAY 1 Dec 6, 2010

1

CJ DAY 2 Dec 7, 2010 BE DAY 2

16


Ancient Witnesses Testify…Book of Enoch Section III: 78:13…on the side whence the light of the moon comes forth, there again she wanes till all the light vanishes and all the days of the month are at an end, and her circumference is empty, void of light.Philo: (178)...the two young bulls since there are two motions of the MOON as it continually runs its double-course--the motion of waxing until full MOON and the motion of waning until its CONJUNCTION with the sun; one ram since there is one principle of reason by which the MOON waxes and wanes in equal intervals, both as it increases and diminishes in illumination; the seven lambs because it receives the perfect shapes in periods of seven days--the half-MOON in the first seven day period after its CONJUNCTION with the sun, full MOON in the second; and when it makes its return again, the first is to half-MOON, then it ceases at its CONJUNCTION with the sun.If a day is divided at darkness, then why wouldn’t a month?

This book also promotes a new moon day that has nothing to do with the new moon, like the Roman Calendar. A faulty source is bound to make faulty statements.

But Philo, says nothing here about how the new moon day is determined. The idea that the moon waxes and wanes in equal halves of time is not astronomically correct because the moon moves on an elliptical orbit and changes speed constantly.

Philo means “ceases [running its double course]” here and not its illumination. Read the context.

Below Philo is describing a period of time during the beginning of the month, not a specific day. We must balance out ALL of Philo’s statements, not just one. XXVI. (140) Following the order which we have adopted, we proceed to speak of the third festival, that of the new moon. First of all, because it is the beginning of the month, and the beginning, whether of number or of time, is honourable. Secondly, because at this time there is nothing in the whole of heaven destitute of light. (141) Thirdly, because at that Period (of time) the more powerful and important body gives a portion of necessary assistance to the less important and weaker body; for, at the time of the new moon, the sun begins to illuminate the moon with a light which is visible to the outward senses, and then she displays her own beauty to the beholders. Italics mine

You cannot have the counting of the month END at the Conjunction, as Philo and Enoch state, and then have a one to two “0” day or days before counting forward for the first day of the month when the Crescent finally appears.

This definition of new moon only supports the sighted new moon.

Once again, seeking support from a book that teaches a completely different calendar than this “book end” model.

Philo says elsewhere that the conjunction is dark, so he is talking about the lighted new moon here, and not a conjunction.


Crescentists have a real problem ending and starting a month at the First Sighting of the Crescent Moon in Israel because:1. it completely ignores any verbiage from historian's that the month comes to an END (stops the count) at the Conjunction. 2. although starting and ending the count from crescent to crescent will always give you correctly a 29 or 30 solar day month, the problem is that 6 to 7 times each year the Full Moon will come and go on their 14th of the month, falling prematurely on their 13th. Another words, their 14th of the month only lands properly on the Full Moon 4 to 5 times each year, the rest of the time the Full Moon lands on their 13th each month. Do you want to follow a calendar that the timing of their Full Moon neither confirms the math but also ignores the witnesses of Historian‘s by not falling regularly on the 14th and 15th

each month? 3. The Hebrew meaning of the word chodesh to renew couldn’t take place at the crescent sighting because the moon started waxing moments after the conjunction up to 2 days earlier.

Where did Philo say this? Philo was speaking of the course as from conjunction to conjunction, but he did not equate the conjunction with the new moon.

Other than violating the presenters western and GREEK sense of symmetry, what is the problem here?

Slight of hand trick here. Philo did not define the biblical month this way. He only described the astronomy.

This is called assuming what you want to prove by defining the language. OR we can call it circular reasoning.

Figures below are the Crescentist Calendar for the year 2010. Notice their calendar has only 1 full moon on the 15th the rest on the 13th and 14th and 7 months the Full Moon falls prematurely

including Sukkot.

Jan 30th F.M. (14th Shevat Full Moon F.M.) a 30 Day MonthFeb 28th F.M. (13th of Adar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMarch 30th F.M. (13th of Abib Passover F.M.) a 29 Day MonthApril 28th F.M. (13th Iyar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMay 28th F.M. (13th Sivan F.M.) a 29 Day MonthJune 26th F.M. (13th Tamuz F.M.) a 30 Day MonthJuly 26th F.M. (13th Av F.M.) a 29 Day MonthAugust 24th F.M. (13th Elul F.M.) a 29 Day MonthSept. 23rd F.M. (14th of Tishrei F.M. Sukkot) a 30 Day MonthOctober 23rd F.M. (14th of Cheshvan F.M.) a 29 Day Month November 21st F.M. (15th of Kislev F.M.) a 30 Day MonthDecember 21st F.M. (14th of Tevet F.M.) a 29 Day Month

But he is assuming that the full moon is SUPPOSED to fall on the 14th. Where does Scripture say it must?

The presentation does not give us the book end model to compare right away, but I have looked ahead. The full moon will always fall on various days UNLESS the calendar maker engineers it on a case by case basis to fall on the 14th or 15th.

Philo’s Witness of Sukkot, Full Moon on the 15th

(189) On the FIFTEENTH day, at full MOON, the feast which is called "the feast of booths" is celebrated for which the supplies of the sacrifices are more numerous. (155)…and this feast is begun on the fifteenth day of the month, in the middle of the month, on the day on which the moon is full of light, in consequence of the providence of God taking care that there shall be no darkness on that day. (Spe 2:155 PHE)Also: (210) Again, the beginning of this festival is appointed for the fifteenth day of the month, on account of the reason which has already been mentioned respecting the spring season, also that the world may be full, not by day only but also by night, of the most beautiful light, the sun and moon on their rising opposite to one another with uninterrupted light, without any darkness interposing itself between so as to divide them. (Spe 2:210 PHE)Remember in the winter the Crescentist’s 15th of the month falls AFTER the Full Moon! Their math isn’t consistent!

It does not matter what calendar system one uses, one cannot make the FULL MOON always fall on the 15th or the 14th or the 13th or the 16th. The only way to make it so is to eclectically engineer the calendar in advance to make the 15th land on the Full new day by switching definitions of the new moon on a case by case basis. This is the only way a constant synchronism with the 15th can be created!

Philo is waxing poetic here. Notice that he does not define the 15th as the precise 100% full moon.

This is less precise than saying full moon. We should not assume that Philo is using a precise scientific definition of Full Moon here. It would be anachronistic to impose a modern meaning on the ancient usage. Philo uses scientific terms for his time, but he also mixes his writing with the usages of the common people, who are less precise.


Philo’s Witness of Passover beginning on a Full Moon on the 14th of the Month

(224) Accordingly, in this month, about the fourteenth day of the month, when the orb of the moon is usually about to become full, the public universal feast of the Passover is celebrated, which in the Chaldaic language is called Pascha; at which festival not only do private individuals bring victims to the altar and the priests sacrifice them, but also, by a particular ordinance of this law, the whole nation is consecrated and officiates in offering sacrifice; every separate individual on this occasion bringing forward and offering up with his own hands the sacrifice due on his own behalf. (Mos 2:224 PHE)Why would Philo say “about the fourteenth day”, and “about to become full”? Because sometime between twilight on the 14th and the 15th the moon WILL BE FULL. That means the timing must be PRECISELY synched to 14-15 for the 1st FULL MOON and NOT the 13-14. Amazingly the moon is first Full on the 14th if you are following the “Bookend Model” Calendar.

Notice this word “usually”! Notice the word ‘about.’ Philo’s language is inclusive of all methods here. One cannot set of a calendar based on this sort of approximation.

But Philo did not say this. He could be interpreted to mean the 13th when he says “about.” He did not say exactly what the presenter is extracting from the text.

The fact that Historian’s state the month comes to an END at the Conjunction can imply only one thing. That the counting of the month comes to an END at the Conjunction, period! If you both end and start the month at the sighting of the crescent, this will go against ancient witnesses as well as the timing of the Full Moon falling in the middle of the lunar Calendar on the 14th and 15th. The math must also balance out as a witness. To ignore these facts is either ignorance or irresponsibleness. Philo of Alexandria writes: "The third [feast] is the New Moon which follows the conjunction of the moon with the sun". [tr. by F H Colson (Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, 1937); The Special Laws, II, XI,41]. And in II, XXVI,140: "This is the New Moon, or beginning of the lunar month, namely the period between one conjunction and the next, the length of which has been accurately calculated in the astronomical schools". It should be noted that the popular Hendrickson Publishers edition (1993) of C D Jonge’s 1854 translation does not have the same information that the Colson translation gives. The indications are that the conjunctions were the determining factors in deciding the first day of the month.Without a doubt, the Conjunction’s role cannot be ignored.

What historians? This is fiction.

Except when all the math is based on an unproven assumption, and an unproven interpretation. As they say garbage in, garbage out, GIGO.

Right, this supports the sighted moon method only.

The fact that Historian’s state the month comes to an END at the Conjunction can imply only one thing. That the counting of the month comes to an END at the Conjunction, period! If you both end and start the month at the sighting of the crescent, this will go against ancient witnesses as well as the timing of the Full Moon falling in the middle of the lunar Calendar on the 14th and 15th. The math must also balance out as a witness. To ignore these facts is either ignorance or irresponsibleness. Philo of Alexandria writes: "The third [feast] is the New Moon which follows the conjunction of the moon with the sun". [tr. by F H Colson (Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, 1937); The Special Laws, II, XI,41]. And in II, XXVI,140: "This is the New Moon, or beginning of the lunar month, namely the period between one conjunction and the next, the length of which has been accurately calculated in the astronomical schools". It should be noted that the popular Hendrickson Publishers edition (1993) of C D Jonge’s 1854 translation does not have the same information that the Colson translation gives. The indications are that the conjunctions were the determining factors in deciding the first day of the month.Without a doubt, the Conjunction’s role cannot be ignored.

I will use Herb Solinsky’s quotation of the source here with added punctuation, “Following the order stated above, we record the third type of feast which we proceed to explain. This is the New Moon, or the beginning of the lunar month, (namely the period between one conjunction and the next, the [average] length of which has been accurately calculated in the astronomical schools). The New moon holds its place among the feasts for many reasons. First, because it is the beginning of the month, and the beginning, both in number and in time, deserves the honor. Secondly, because when it [the new moon] arrives, nothing in heaven is left without light, for while at the conjunction, when the moon is lost to sight under the sun, the side which faces earth is darkened, when the new month begins, it resumes its natural brightness. The third reason is, that the stronger or more powerful element [the sun] at that time [the new moon] supplies the help [light] which is needed to the smaller and weaker [the moon]. For it is just then [at the new moon] that the sun begins to illumine the moon with light which we perceive and the moon reveals its own beauty to the eye.”

Please note that Philo is saying the length of the month was defined by the schools between the conjunctions. He is not saying the “new moon” is defined as the “conjunction.” Philo’s following context clearly makes a distinction between the conjunction (dark) and the new moon (lighted “with light which we perceive”). Our presenters mistake is in equating the WHOLE ( ) to the sentence going all the way back to the words “New Moon.” The problem with this is that it suggests the new moon is a 29.5 day period of time, and contradicts the words “the beginning” and the following context. The ( ) section only applies to Philo’s additional explanation of “month” as being given a precise average length by the astronomers, i.e. 25.53 days.

Philo states: 257 And the expression "from" has a double sense. One, that by which the starting point from which it begins is included; the other that by which it is excluded. For when we say that from morning to evening there are twelve hours, or from the new moon to the end of the month there are thirty days, we are including in our enumeration both the first hour and the day of the new moon. And when any one says that such and such a field is three or four furlongs distant from the city, he clearly means to leave the city itself out of that measurement. (Som 2:257 PHE)What is he saying? When you count the 12 hours from morning to evening, the count starts at the beginning of the first hour, at zero, but it is not numbered as ONE until after the first hour is complete. So it is with the new moon happening at the Conjunction but you do not count it as ONE until the close of the solar day. You cannot get 30 days if you start counting after the first sighting of the crescent forward and end at the new moon Conjunction. That would be less than 29 days.

But here the new moon is not defined as the conjunction. You can’t assume what you want to prove. The first hour would be sunset, not the sighting. But we see from Philo’s assigning of 12 hours to the day that his numbers are not meant to be exactingly precise. We know the length of the day varies. And so did Philo.

The first hour of the day is from 0 to 60 minutes when you are enumerating, and days of the month are always enumerated. There is never a 0th day because the count always goes 29 30 1 2 or 28 29 1 2. In any case the argument is an analogy that assumes the new moon = conjunction. Days of the month are always enumerated, as many other things. This is about as cheap as tricks can get.

Philo’s witness of the equal halvesIf you do not start your month on the right day then the orbit of the moon will not be divided equally, thus discounting the math and historical witnesses. Again we hear Philo proclaim:(178)…since there are Two Motions of the MOON as it continually runs its double-course--the motion of Waxing until Full MOON and the motion of Waning until its CONJUNCTION with the sun.(234) Again, are not the periods of the MOON, as she advances and retraces her course, from a CRESCENT to a full circle, and again, from a complete orb to a CRESCENT, also measured by an equality of distances?101 XXXIV. And the number so produced, is calculated to reproduce the revolutions of the moon, bringing her back to the point from which she first began to increase in a manner perceptible by the external senses, and to which she returns by waning. continued…

The orbit of the moon can never be equally divided by time and illumination of the moon at the same time (except in rare circumstances), because the moon changes speed on an elliptical orbit. If you divide the orbit by half times, then the moon will not be 100% at half the time from conjunction. But if you divide to 180 degrees, then the full moon will not be at half the time between conjunctions. Elementary my dear Watson.

Philo’s witness of the equal halvesIf you do not start your month on the right day then the orbit of the moon will not be divided equally, thus discounting the math and historical witnesses. Again we hear Philo proclaim:(178)…since there are Two Motions of the MOON as it continually runs its double-course--the motion of Waxing until Full MOON and the motion of Waning until its CONJUNCTION with the sun.(234) Again, are not the periods of the MOON, as she advances and retraces her course, from a CRESCENT to a full circle, and again, from a complete orb to a CRESCENT, also measured by an equality of distances?101 XXXIV. And the number so produced, is calculated to reproduce the revolutions of the moon, bringing her back to the point from which she first began to increase in a manner perceptible by the external senses, and to which she returns by waning. continued…

“double course” equal halves by degrees (180), but not by time, as the time varies.

If this is what Philo meant, that half the distance of the orbit equals half the time of the month, then he is scientifically ignorant. Can we base something so important as the calendar on a questionable interpretation that is founded on astronomical ignorance?

Exaggerated elliptical orbit

After conjunction, the moon moves faster to full moon than half the month.

After full moon, the moon moves slower, talking more than half a period to reach conjunction.

The irregularity of speed of the moon means it can be full on day 13, 14, 15, or 16, or even 17. The exact range depends on the calendar system used, but it is theoretically impossible for any calendar system to consistently have the full moon on the same day half way in time from conjunction to conjunction.

For she increases from her first crescent-shaped figure, to that of a half circle in seven days; and in seven more, she becomes a full orb; and then again she turns back, retracing the same path, like a runner of the diaulos, receding from an orb full of light, to a half circle again in seven days, and lastly, in an equal number she diminishes from a half circle to the form of a crescent; and thus the number before mentioned is completed. (Opi 1:101 PHE)…like the MOON, which from its first rise proceeds in its increase according to an equal number, going onward to its Perfect Fullness of Light, and then again with an Equal Number in its Decrease, returning back to its original state, after having been previously Full; and in like manner in the case of Divine Chastisements, the Creator preserves a regular order, banishing all irregularity from the divine borders. (He explains 4 sets of 7’s totaling 28, from 1st waxing crescent to last waning crescent. He’s not inferring this to coincide with a calendar count which requires 29 to 30 days)

If Philo is rounding off to simply expound the symmetry, then he is not exact enough to be interpreted as support for the book end model. On the other hand, if he is interpreted as exact or really meant to be exact, then he is simply in error. Is this possible? Yes, it is possible that he did not know the orbit of the moon was an ellipse, and it is possible that he did not know the difference between 95% full and 100% full. But knowing which is the case is not important. What is important is that if Philo is taken exactly, then it is scientifically wrong. Either way, the book end model bites the dust.

For she increases from her first crescent-shaped figure, to that of a half circle in seven days; and in seven more, she becomes a full orb; and then again she turns back, retracing the same path, like a runner of the diaulos, receding from an orb full of light, to a half circle again in seven days, and lastly, in an equal number she diminishes from a half circle to the form of a crescent; and thus the number before mentioned is completed. (Opi 1:101 PHE)…like the MOON, which from its first rise proceeds in its increase according to an equal number, going onward to its Perfect Fullness of Light, and then again with an Equal Number in its Decrease, returning back to its original state, after having been previously Full; and in like manner in the case of Divine Chastisements, the Creator preserves a regular order, banishing all irregularity from the divine borders. (He explains 4 sets of 7’s totaling 28, from 1st waxing crescent to last waning crescent. He’s not inferring this to coincide with a calendar count which requires 29 to 30 days)

This explanation is even weirder than Philo’s remark, since the total time is 29.53 days on average, and varies, how can this symmetry ever occur on any regular basis?

If sight alone was the way Israel set their calendar up, then what did they do during the spring and winter rains

when the sky remained cloudy for months?

They calculated the moon as best their science would allow in these cases. But that does not mean they calculated it according to the Book End theory!

Depending on the authoritative rabbinical opinion you follow, nightfall is defined in the Jewish Talmud as being "the end of

sunset" and occurs anytime from 20 min. to 1 hour after sunset, depending on your geographic location when 3 medium size stars are seen, and twilight (dusk) when 2 medium stars can be seen.

For the purpose of the new moon, the new calendar day begins at sunset, and the first day of the month is numbered on the day to come. The presenter is only trying to confuse us with definitions that the Rabbis do not actually apply to the day of the new moon.

The Bookend Model uses the sighting of the first crescent as a marker to close out the first day of the new month. Does this look like this day has ended according to Hebrew reckoning of time?

The presenter has just quoted a traditional source in a traditional definition, and applied it in a way that the Rabbis would not apply. Days are defined in different ways in Scripture, for different purposes. I described the dawn to dusk day and the daybreak to daybreak calendar day. This was used for Temple offerings. Sunset was used for Sabbaths. Each type of day is for its own purpose. The presenter is confused himself, and trying to confuse his listeners by arbitrarily applying a varying set of standards.

The simple truth is, the moment the sun sets, isn’t when the old day slams shut and the new day begins immediately, any more than when the last waning crescent sets out of view on the morning of the 28th or 29th just before sunrise doesn’t mean the lunar month has come to an end either, because the period of time called the Dark Moon (conjunction) hasn’t occurred. Within minutes after sunset, it is possible to view the first waxing crescent in a completely BLUE sky and according to the Talmud you may still be in the same day actually viewing the last closing period of the same day. The first crescent does not actually set until at least one to two hours, after sunset. The Babylonian Talmud states: Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When [only] one star [is visible], it is day; when two [appear], it is twilight; three, it is night. It was taught likewise: When one star [is visible], it is day; when two [appear], it is twilight; three, it is night. R. Jose b. Abin said: Not the large stars, which are visible by day, nor the small ones, which are visible only at night, but the medium sized.

Again, one can have changing arbitrary standards, or one can stick to one or the other for the definition of a calendar day. We have to remember that at the start of this presentation the author told us a day began at sunset. He is just moving the boundary stone…only for the purpose of bolstering his theory of the new moon, and not because it needs to be moved.

When does a Day End According to Torah?We know from creation that a day ends at evening and is measured from evening until evening as confirmed in:Gen 1:8 And there was evening, and there was morning…Ex 27:21 Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before Yahuwah…Lev 23:32 on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your Sabbath. According to Hebrew reckoning when does evening begin? Rabbis have been arguing over this for thousands of years. Evening in Hebrew is Strong’s OT:6153 `ereb (eh'-reb); from OT:6150; dusk (twilight) to night (darkness).The Hebrew word nesheph for twilight is that part of time considered to come after sunset called DUSK and before night.Evening is the period of time that starts sometime after sunset from either Dusk (twilight) or actual Nightfall, Darkness. So a day ends at the earliest at Dusk/twilight, at the latest Nightfall.

Incorrect, the day is from daybreak to daybreak for creation. Yahweh Elohim created in the day, and “then there was setting, then there was daybreak, one day.”

Really, this passage is using the daybreak to daybreak day to define a sunset to sunset day. The first setting is “on the 9th day”; One can ask why the text just does not simply day “the tenth day”?

As usual, not a real Hebrew Lexicon. BDB defines, “set” “sunset” “grow dark.” Even so Strong’s definition proves that you can’t have twilight without creating light first.

Really, Erev can refer to noon, when the sun starts to go down, as in “between the settings.” This is the way the Rabbis always took the phrase, as referring to the afternoon. Our presenter only picks and chooses those Jewish opinions which suit him.

Nehemiah 13:19 And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day. KJV The word dark in this verse in Hebrew is OT:6751 tsalal (tsaw-lal'); to shade, as twilight or an opaque object: KJV - begin to be dark, shadowing.This verse implies that Sabbath did not begin, and consequently the doors of the temple were not closed until twilight fell, which was after sunset. Twilight can begin any time between 20 minutes and 1 hour after sunset when 2 medium size stars can be observed.

The word means shadow. “…when they are shadowed. This can happen before sunset, when the doors begin to cast long shadows through the gateway (if the sun still shines on them at all). But whichever way one wishes to say it was, our presenter has once again assumed something. Do we now suppose the Sabbath well after sunset to satisfy his need for a way to contradict the normal historical way of sighting the new moon.

What was Happening During the 2nd Temple Period?All records for the most part have been lost or destroyed during the 1st Temple Period, but we do have evidence from the Talmud concerning the loss of Priests who died during the 2nd Temple Period. We know that after Babylon the Priesthood was corrupt in many ways. The question remains, why were so many Priests dying? Could it be they were entering into the Holy of Holies on Day of Atonement on the WRONG DAY? Is this why they started tying a cord to the Priests who entered?Yoma, 9a. States: “The Second Temple stood for 420 years, ve-shimshu bo yoter mi-shelosh meot Kohanim, and more than 300 served as High Priest over that period. Take out forty years in which Shimon the Tzaddik was the High Priest and deduct another 80 years in which Yochanan the Kohen Gadol served, and ten more years that Elazar b. Charson served.” That leaves 300 priests over 290 years. “Kol echad ve-echad lo hotzi shenato, none of them lived out their year in office.” continued…

O.k, now we have a conspiracy theory as to why the priests were dying. Their calendar was wrong…and so also all historical witness to how they figured the calendar is discredited by assuming a conspiracy theory!!!!

We can safely reject his tradition on the authority of Josephus. The High Priest was often simply replaced by Politics. But he was not killed, nor died. Just deposed.

Soncino Zohar, Vayikra, Section 3, Page 102a states: R. Isaac said: ‘A cord was tied to the feet of the High Priest before he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he died suddenly within they should be able to draw him out.Yoma 9a also states: Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: It is written [in Proverbs x. 27]: "The fear of the Lord increases man's days, but the years of the wicked will be shortened." "The fear of the Lord increases the days"; that refers to the first Temple, during whose existence of four hundred and ten years there were only eighteen high-priests. "The years of the wicked will be shortened," refers to the second Temple, which existed four hundred and twenty years, and more than three hundred high-priests succeeded each other during that period. Subtract the forty years during which Simeon the Righteous ministered, eighty years of Johanan the high-priest's ministry, ten years of Ishmael b. Favi according to others, eleven years of R. Eleazer b. Harsum--and compute, you will see that not even one high-priest completed his year.

Right, only for a possible death.

Even this is not probable, but that it has anything to do with the wrong calendar is a insensible argument.

Then comes Hillel the ElderAlthough it is argued how many priests died as well as what caused their deaths, it is agreed that the troubles of the 2nd temple period were great for many reasons.What is testified to in the Talmud and rabbinic writings is the restoring of the calendar by calculations by Hillel the Elder a Pharisaic leader just before the messiah was born. Magid Harakia writes: Establishing the beginning of months (Rosh Hodesh) through sighting the New Moon is an ancient law in Israel. The antiquity of this practice is documented in many early sources, Karaite as well as Rabbanite. The decree of establishing the Rosh Hodesh on the basis of calculations which are unconnected to the appearance of the moon was enacted by the Rabbanite, Hillel the Elder. The method was guarded as a secret to keep the people from knowing about the change and therefore was called by our brothers the Rabbanites “The Secret of Intercalation” (this is testified to in Rabbinite works, of “Magid Harakia” page 35).

How nice on the timing. But the correct year for this is AD 359.

So named, the “Bookend Model” because like bookends, the Conjunction and the 1st Crescent comprise a timing of the “New Moon Period” that Philo alludes to in XXVI (140). The Conjunction looks forward, and the Crescent looks backward. Early on, the ancients may not have known the “exact” time of the Conjunction, and thus the Hebrew idiom, “no man knows the hour or the day” came about, but today, we DO KNOW, down to the minute, when both the Conjunction and the Full Moon takes place. Should we ignore this knowledge? This knowledge can actually help to confirm and tie all the pieces of the puzzle together in our generation if used properly and solve this riddle that has separated brethren.The Bookend Model fits everything the ancients have been trying to speak to us in their writings, as well as the Torah, and last but not least, the increase in knowledge, by which, we have been given from computers to confirm all this information with the witness of the MATH.

We have already seen that Philo was taken out of context.

Yeshua’s one time statement does not make it a Hebrew idom.

The Bookend Model utilizes both the Conjunction and the sighting of the 1st Crescent. The best of both worlds leaving nothing out but each relying on the other to set the timing of the 1st day. A system of checks and balances. The ancients may not have known the exact timing of the Conjunction until after the event took place because they may have had to analyze all their information as they were experiencing the event. Thus, by sighting the 1st Crescent they would be able to confirm their calculations of when the conjunction happened relative to the observance of the Full Moon. They knew for certain the month would either have 29 or 30 days, but anyone who follows the lunar calendar regularly knows there doesn’t seem to be a set pattern as to when they occur. They could only know, that it would be, either a one day dark moon, or a two day dark moon, no more and no less. Thus, the 1st Crescent confirmed the timing of the Conjunction and set the first day of the month. Today, we can figure out these events in advance with computers. It’s a no brainer!

I think to hit the right full moon days, they have to pick and choose on a case by case basis between the two.

Really what they are doing is calculating the FULL moon, and then fixing the calendar to line up the full moon on the 14th or 15th. Whatever it takes to line up the full moon determines whether they select the conjunction day, a day between, or the sighted moon day to start the month.

Dating backwards from the sighting of course.

Figures below are from the Bookend Model for the year 2010. If you start your calendar off on the right solar day, then it should have and equal number of 29 and 30 day months (6 each), and

the Full Moon should fall on the 14th or 15th with 354 annual days.

Jan 30th 2010 (15th Shevat Full Moon F.M.) a 30 Day MonthFeb 28th (14th of Adar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMarch 30th (14th of Abib Passover F.M.) a 29 Day MonthApril 28th (14th Iyar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMay 28th (14th Sivan F.M.) a 29 Day MonthJune 26th (14th Tamuz F.M.) a 30 Day MonthJuly 26th (14th Av F.M.) a 29 Day MonthAugust 24th (14th Elul F.M.) a 29 Day MonthSeptember 23rd (15th of Tishrei F.M. Sukkot) a 30 Day MonthOctober 23rd (15th of Cheshvan F.M.) a 29 Day Month November 21st (15th of Kislev F.M.) a 30 Day MonthDecember 21st (15th of Tevet F.M.) a 29 Day Month

The black moon reveals the time of the conjunction, with the BE day of the month in the moon. The white moon reveals the time of the full moon two weeks after the date listed, with the BE date of the month in the moon. The first lighted moon reveals the time of sighting. To achieve the target date of the full moon on the 15th of Shevat requires the BE model to put the first day of the month between the conjunction day and the sighting day.

BE Day 1 Jan 16, 2010 BE Day 2 Jan 17, 2010BE DAY 29 Jan 15, 2010

29 15

The full moon two weeks later, i.e. add 14 days to Jan 16 = Jan 30th. I drew the chart this way to show the relative variation between the conjunction and the full moon. It is not a constant. Notice the changing relationship as we go forward.




In order to engineer the 14th of Adar onto the Full moon day requires the full moon 2 weeks after the last day of the old month. The full moon was Feb 28, 16:38 UT, after sunset in Jerusalem. To achieve this the BE day 1 must fall on the same day as the sighted moon. From this and the last month, it is clear that the relationship between the conjunction and the first day of the month in this calendar is arbitrary. The arbitrary placement of day 1 BE is a consequence of targeting certain days of the month on the full moon.

BE DAY 30Feb 15,

2010BE Day 1 Feb 16, 2010BE DAY 29 Feb 14, 2010

29 14




In order to engineer the 14th of Aviv onto the Full moon day requires the full moon 2 weeks after the last day of the old month, so that BE day 1 must fall between the conjunction day and the sighting day.

BE DAY 1 Mar 17, 2010 BE Day 3 Mar 18, 2010BE DAY 29 Mar 16, 2010

29 14




Here I had to stack the full moon figure, because in this case it is close to exactly 14 days after conjunction. To get the 14th of Iyar on the full moon requires BE DAY 1 to fall between the conjunction day and the sighting day.

BE DAY 1 Apr 15, 2010 BE DAY 2 Apr 16, 2010BE DAY 30 Apr 14, 2010

30

14




Here I had to stack the full moon figure, because in this case it is close to exactly 14 days after conjunction. To get the 14th of Sivan on the full moon requires BE DAY 1 to fall between the conjunction day and the sighting day.

BE DAY 1May 15,

2010BE DAY 2

May 16, 2010

BE DAY 29May 14,

2010

29

14




Here there are two complete days (sunset to sunset) between the conjunction day and the day of the sighting, and also we see that BE DAY 1 is a whole day away from the conjunction. This again exposes the arbitrary relationship between the conjunction and the first day of the month in order to keep the full moon on day 14.

BE DAY 30June 12,

2010BE DAY 1

June 13, 2010

BE DAY 29June 11,

2010

29 14

BE DAY 2




BE Day 1 has to fall on the day between the conjunction and the first visible new moon to get the 14th of Av on the full moon.

BE DAY 29 Jul 12, 2010 BE DAY 1 Jul 13, 2010

29 14

BE DAY 2




Since the full moon was after sunset in Jerusalem on Aug 24th, making it the 14th day of Elul requires BE DAY 1 to be the same day as the sighted moon, skipping over a whole day between the conjunction and the sighted new moon. There is no consistent rule relationship between the conjunction and day 1 in this calendar. The set up is determined by desired full moon dates on desired days of the month, without any regard to the relationship between the conjunction OR sighted new moon as to which day is day 1 of the month.

BE DAY 29 Aug 10, 2010 BE DAY 30 Aug 11, 2010

29 14

BE DAY 1




We see here two complete days between the conjunction and the first sighted new moon. Sanford has picked the first of these two between days for BE DAY 1 so that the 15th of Tishri will be the full moon day (Sept 23rd, 2010 @ 9:17 UT). We saw these two between days back in the June calendar, but Sanford picked the second of the two days. This shows the arbitrary relationship between the conjunction date and the day picked for BE DAY 1. The determining factor in this calendar is the need to make the full moon day fall on certain days. So in reality this calendar is a full moon method, and not a new moon method.

BE DAY 29 Sep 8, 2010 BE DAY 1 Sep 9, 2010

29 15

BE DAY 2 Sep 10, 2010 BE DAY 3




Again, BE day 1 falls on the between day in order to target the 15th of the month on the full moon (October 23rd , 01:36 UT).

BE DAY 29 Oct 8, 2010

29

BE DAY 1 Oct 9, 2010 BE DAY 2

15




Here, in order to land the 15th on the Full moon requires BE DAY 1 to be the same day as the sighted moon, placing a whole day between the conjunction and BE DAY 1. We can conclude that the calendar is set up to sanctify the full moon and not the new moon, because the full moon keeps determining the way things will go. Here the conjunction was Nov 6, 04:52 UT, and the Full moon was Nov 21, 17:27 UT (after sunset in Jerusalem).

BE DAY 29 Nov 6, 2010

29

BE DAY 30 Nov 7, 2010 BE DAY 1

15




In this case BE DAY 1 has to be on the day between the conjunction and the first sighting. (note that in the sighted moon method, the full moon would come on the 14th).

BE DAY 30 Dec 6, 2010

30

BE DAY 1 Dec 7, 2010 BE DAY 2

15

Figures below are from the Bookend Model for the Hebrew Calendar Abib/Adar year 2010. It still has an equal number of 29 and 30 day months (6 each), and the Full Moon should fall on

average between the 14th or 15th with 354 annual days.

2010 March 30th (14th of Abib Passover F.M.) a 29 Day MonthApril 28th (14th Iyar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMay 28th (14th Sivan F.M.) a 29 Day MonthJune 26th (14th Tamuz F.M.) a 30 Day MonthJuly 26th (14th Av F.M.) a 29 Day MonthAugust 24th (14th Elul F.M.) a 29 Day MonthSeptember 23rd (15th of Tishrei F.M. Sukkot) a 30 Day MonthOctober 23rd (15th of Cheshvan F.M.) a 29 Day Month November 21st (15th of Kislev F.M.) a 30 Day MonthDecember 21st (15th of Tevet F.M.) a 29 Day Month2011 Jan 20th (16th of Shevat F.M.) a 30 Day MonthFebruary 15th (15th of Adar F.M.) a 30 Day Month

Sanford has added two months on his next slide here. So let us examine these. I am really curious why he did not put BE DAY 1 here on the same day as the sighted moon. If he had, then the full moon would have landed on the 15th instead of the 16th.

BE DAY 30 Jan 4, 2010

30

BE DAY 1 Jan 5, 2010 BE DAY 2

16

Figures below are from the Bookend Model for the Hebrew Calendar Abib/Adar year 2010. It still has an equal number of 29 and 30 day months (6 each), and the Full Moon should fall on

average between the 14th or 15th with 354 annual days.

2010 March 30th (14th of Abib Passover F.M.) a 29 Day MonthApril 28th (14th Iyar F.M.) a 30 Day MonthMay 28th (14th Sivan F.M.) a 29 Day MonthJune 26th (14th Tamuz F.M.) a 30 Day MonthJuly 26th (14th Av F.M.) a 29 Day MonthAugust 24th (14th Elul F.M.) a 29 Day MonthSeptember 23rd (15th of Tishrei F.M. Sukkot) a 30 Day MonthOctober 23rd (15th of Cheshvan F.M.) a 29 Day Month November 21st (15th of Kislev F.M.) a 30 Day MonthDecember 21st (15th of Tevet F.M.) a 29 Day Month2011 Jan 20th (16th of Shevat F.M.) a 30 Day MonthFebruary 15th (15th of Adar F.M.) a 30 Day Month

We see again that we have the day between conjunction and sighting as BE DAY 1. We can now answer the question in the preceding slide. Why did Sanford target the 16th?

BE DAY 29 Feb 3, 2010

29

BE DAY 1 Feb 4, 2010 BE DAY 2

15

If he had targeted the 15th instead of the 16th in the month before, then the result for Adar would be different. Notice the conjunction on day 28. Targeting the 16th in the previous month is clearly based on knowledge of problematic consequence of targeting the 15th. That consequence is seen below. This shows that this calendar REQUIRES advanced calculation knowledge at least a month ahead to avoid a decision in the month before resulting in a problem in the month after.

BE DAY 28 Feb 3, 2010

28

BE DAY 29 Feb 4, 2010 BE DAY 1

14

Should say Feb 18th for the full moon. Just a typo.

Ps 81:3 Blow up the trumpet in the New Moon, in the Time Appointed, on our solemn feast day. KJVThis text can speak volumes to us in regard to the importance of when the NEW MOON actually occurs. We know the word for New Moon here is Chodesh, which comes from the root word Chadash which means to rebuild, repair, or renew.The key is to know when to blow the trumpets at the New Moon, Chodesh/Chadash and the Hebrew word used for Appointed Time, is Kece or Keceh whose root word is Kacah which means to cover, conceal, hide, cloth, secrecy, or overwhelm. Job 26:9 He covers the face of the moon (kacah). He is not speaking of a Full Moon as some interpretations allude to. He is speaking only of single event, the new moon and his witness gives us insight as to when the month starts. The Hebrew says: Blow the trumpet at the New Moon, when the moon is CONCEALED (kacah), on our solemn feast day.The evidence David has supplied to us is monumental to when the New Moon actually occurs. Clearly, it is when the moon is covered, concealed, hidden, clothed, in secrecy, or overwhelm, at the CONJUNCTION!!Pro 12:23 A wise man conceals (kacah) knowledge…..

He covers the face of the new moon with new light. That’s all there is to it folks. Do a word study in Hebrew on this and you will see that “cover” in this sense is a lot better than “conceal.” The idea of light being a covering is illustrated in Numbers 9:15, where the pillar of fire covered the tabernacle. See also Habakkuk 3:3, "His splendor covers the heavens", evidently lighted objects showing the glory of the Almighty. Also texts, use this verb of covering nakedness. A dark moon is a naked moon. See Ezekiel 18:16.

Nonsense. It is covered [with light].

Conversation between David and JonathanIt was during the time of King Saul that we know for certain they celebrated two days for the New Moon Period of time. This is a strong witness because we know today that there are 2 to 3 days from Conjunction to the 1st sighting of the Crescent moon. Both Conjunctionist and Crescentist ignore this because both want to ignore the importance of the other, consequently the two day celebration in 1 Samuel means very little.Their conversation only supports the Bookend Model’s Math.DAY 28. In 1 Sam 20:5 David said to Jonathan, Look, tomorrow is the New Moon. What were they Looking at??? It could only have been the last waning crescent on the 28th day.Day 29. First evening feast, on the DARK MOON DAY.Day 1. The 2nd evening feast was after sighting of the First Waxing Crescent. If they had not spotted the crescent that day they may have known to add a 30th day to the calendar depending on their Full Moon calculations. continued…

Herb Solinsky took up the Samuel text long before the book end model came also. I also considered it long before as no problem at all.

If it was the 30th day of the month in the morning, they would also say “tomorrow is the new moon since they knew the month could not have 31 days…..or if David speaks like his wife Michael then “tomorrow” means in the morning and “new moon” refers to the feast. David actually saw or got a report that the new moon had been seen at sunset on the 29th day, then that night he speaks with Jonathan and says “tomorrow” meaning the morning, just like his wife used the word the same way (cf. 1Sam. 19:11).

Conversation between David and Jonathan24 It came about the next day, the second day of the new moon, that David's place was empty; so Saul said to Jonathan his son, "Why has the son of Jesse not come to the meal, either yesterday or today?”34 Then Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat food on the second day of the new moon, for he was grieved over David because his father had dishonored him. So, you have to ask the question, if the crescent is the first marker, forward, on the Karaite Calendar--why then would they have a feast on the SECOND day of the month? The fact is, the only way you reason two feast days is by starting at the conjunction on the 1st Dark Moon Day.The new moon is proclaimed over 2 days. That must bring the conjunction in as marker one and the sighting of the 1st crescent as marker two looking backward on the day it is seen.The Crescent confirms the timing of the conjunction.

1. Because Saul wanted to. It is the only time recorded in Scripture, and there is no commandment for a second day.

2. Because they customarily had two days, one after the 29th day, and one the next day, regardless of which day was the official new moon. Still the first day of the month was numbered after the moon was sighted, so the feast days were on the 1st and 2nd days of the month, or on the 30th, and 1st days of the month.

The only way? Did it ever occur to Mr. Sanford that only one of the new moon feasts is considered the official day of sanctification, and that the two days are merely to make sure the sighted moon day is a feast day, and that even after knowing the first one is official, then went ahead with the second feast day because they wanted to. And what IF someone was unclean on the first day…ever hear of the second Passover…same analogy.

We could translate this “second day of the month.”

Lets make it even clearer…because the importance of this cannot be underestimated

How could David and Jonathan know for certain that the next day was the New Moon unless they had observed the last waning crescent and knew of the feast that was planned on the next day?

Sept 7th

28th ElulLast sighting of waning crescent

1 Sam 20:5David says to Jonathan, “tomorrow is the new moon.”

Sept 8th

29th ElulConjunction at1:30 PM

1 Sam 20:24FIRST evening Feast.

DARK MOON

Sept 9th

@ 1st Tishrei1st WaxingCrescent sighted at evening.

1 Sam 20:27SECOND evening Feast.

Sept 10th

2nd Tishrei

1 Sam 20:12

The THIRD day when David and Jonathan met.

Crescentist want to believe that the 2nd day of the feast fell on Tishrei 2. But what would be the significance of having a costly feast on the second day of any month? The day to celebrate is the dark moon and the first day of the month which follows.

More astronomical ignorance here. The conjunction day can be more than one day away from the last sighting of the waning moon. If the moon is seen at an elongation of 19 degrees on this day (the 28th), then 24 hours later it would be at an elongation of 7 degrees (still waning), but it was not seen at all due to Danjon’s limit (the 29th day), then the conjunction could occur just after sunset on the 30th day, and then move to 12 degrees elongation and a steep arc of vision, and be seen after sunset on the 30th day. There is no guarantee of knowing the new moon day by last observance of the waning moon.

David saw or got a report of the new moon at this point, during the night.

When he said “tomorrow is the new moon” he was referring to the celebration to begin with the next daylight period, just as his wife used the word “tomorrow” the same way in 1Sam 19:11.

Second day, the third day began after sunset, or it is possible that Jonathan went out at sunrise.

If you are a king, there is sense in it, especially one that is trying to please others by being ultra pious.

The new moon is also compared to a new birth… Why would this be? The Hebrew word molad means

birth and refers to the time during the Conjunction of the new moon.

With each new month comes a new moon that is birthed in darkness at the conjunction when the waning moon fugitively dies or disappears in seemingly darkness only to born again.

The answer can be clearer if you simply understand the process of “when” the birth process begins with a child.

The birth actually begins when NO one can see the child, as with the birth of the new moon, both are in complete darkness.

Life starts in darkness, Father creates something from nothing.

Right, only in post biblical Rabbinic Hebrew. But really, you can’t determine science by symbolism or metaphors. Get the fact right first, and then do the ark work.

Without exception, every ancient pagan culture has used both the Sun and Crescent Moon as religious worship symbols of their faith. A book could be written on just this subject alone.

The biblical record indicates that the Israelites have NEVER used the Crescent Moon or the Sun as a symbol of their faith.

The only time the word Crescent is used in the Bible is to describe a round shaped object that was worn to symbolized the crescent moon. In Judges 8:21 So Gideon arose and killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and took the crescent ornaments… NKJV (Zebah and Zalmunna were pagan Midianites)

Gideon destroyed them and melted them down. The crescent ornaments probably looked similar to these ancient artifacts:

Now the pious putting everyone under the fear of God again. The sun and moon are mentioned in Gen. 1:14. The moon looks like a crescent. The Almighty created it to look that way, but now we are going to be guilty by associating with something that Yahweh created to look like a crescent.

That’s why we say “sighted moon” or “first visible moon” so as not to offend sensitive people, but we do reserve the right to say crescent, just as we reserve the right to say “tree” (even though trees are worshiped too). I have deleted the rest of this part.

The Temple was run according to the Conjunction for the ancient calendar which was observed by the Sadducees and the same as was observed by the Samaritans. After the dispersal the rabbinical sects who took over from the Pharisees tried to introduce the postponements and thus the Samaritans are then alleged to have had differing lights for the beacons on the new moons. During the Temple period the beacons were lit as the new moon was always determined by Conjunction which is not an observation system. There is no evidence that the Samaritans ever changed their method of calculation of the New Moon in history either during or after the Second Temple period. They still keep the same system today (cf. the paper God’s Calendar No. (156) (2nd ed.) from the CCG).

We know from the writings of Josephus exactly that the Samaritans and the Sadducees both denied any oral tradition and both kept only the written law of the Torah. We should note that the Conjunction, or molad, is the astronomical crossover point from one month to the next and that the determined Hillel Calendar for the New Moon and the molad seldom coincide but has become more inaccurate over time.

This is all historical bunk from the Christian Church of God. Yes, I saw their paper. They distort Philo the same way Sanford does.

Falsehoods like this lead to total ignorance of how things really happened. Learn the REAL Scriptural chronology at www.torahtimes.org.

Documents

The Book End Calendar Model by Daniel Gregg THE QUESTION: THE QUESTION: Does the lunar month begin at the conjunction or the sighting of the first crescent