YHWHsavesdotcom wrote:I believe YHWH left that book out of what he caused to be known as the 'canon' of text. He has his own reasons for doing so. If he would have wanted 'enoch' to be in the 'book' he would have done so. The fact that the book is quoted in scripture (in an unknown form) does not make every or any 'enoch' manuscript out there to be equivalent to 'scripture'. The very fact that YHWH didn't include it in canon is suggestive enough to me to 'beware' what I use 'Enoch' for. And I have used enoch as evidence in the past on unrelated issues where perhaps applicable and did not conflict with 'authorized cannon' (in the form of the 'old testament' manuscripts). On this issue it is in opposition scripture as I have come to know it being reflected in the 'signs' of the 'moedim' themselves. YHWH has revealed his 'diviision of time' very clearly.
Um... "canon" is a thing made up by men. The Catholics have a different "canon" than the Jews, who have a different Canon than the Samaritans, or the Peshitta of the Ghurch of God of the East, or the "Orthodox" Christian Church... or even consider the Mormons.
If you blindly trust the 66 books of the protestant "canon" as divine, and nothing else, you've got some learning on the very basics of faith to do.
The light shines into the darkness if you will. We know exactly when the 'renewal' or chodesh begins by observing the 'otot' of the light on the moon. If one observes the 'first day' of the chodesh, not when the 'renewal' or conjunction happens (as determined by the other 'signs') but after light is seen in the 'first sliver', then all of the other 'signs' are non existent. You have replaced three signs that testify of the fourth for only a single testimony about nothing at all.
If you observe the 'sliver' as the beginning of your month, you would be celebrating the 'full moon' sabbath of the 'middle of the month' 15th day Sabbath, AFTER FULL MOON DAY every month. Instead of looking up at the sky and seeing a nearly perfect full moon through whose slightly discernable differences one can determine the length of the next months 'Chodesh day' (as being either 1 or 2 days depending on whether the full moon is slightly waning or slightly waxing), you would ALWAYS SEE A CLEARLY WANING GIBBEOUS. The quarter moon otot would also be way off. There is no testimony for one another. Whereas if one keeps the chodesh properly, these signs testify of eachother so that we need not rely on any 'one' since the testimony stands true throughout the entire cycle of light.
OK, you'd be making sense here - except your wrong about the moon.
If we go to a site like http://aa.usno.navy.mil/
and actually look up the lunar data, say for the first 5 moons in 2008, and report the date of, say, 1% illumination and report the illumination 14 days later, we see:
Roman Date of New Moon (Midnight UTC, that is, England)
Jan 10, 2008 2%; 1/24=97% waning
Feb 8, 2008 1%; 2/22=99% waning
Mar 9, 2008 2%; 3/23=98% waning
Apr 7, 2008 1%; 4/21=100%
May 6, 2008 1%; 5/20=100%
Hrm, looks like a full moon on the 14 or 15th.
Now, I'm sure you could argue the "full moon" is ONLY the date of 100% illumination, except - we see multiple dates, sometimes, with 100% illumination. and some months we don't get a moonless night, either - we go from a late final crescent to an early waxing crescent the next night.
I would also challenge you to tell the difference by eye between a 100% illuminated disk and one at 97% illumination. I would suspect that you could not - because I know how the eye works with the brain to fit things into ideas. To see something "almost round" as not being round takes a reference, which doesn't exist in the sky for the moon. That is why the ancients built complex passage observatories: to prove the observance.
Which is an argument, if you ask me, against the validity of 'it's not full'.
On another note, what signs do you think the scripture gives for the new moon? Is this your "observe the 14th" stuff?