WHEN DOES A SCRIPTURAL NEW MOON BEGIN?

[BrotherArnold]

even so, there are times when the new moon isn't seen in Israel on one calendar day, but 8 hours later it can be seen in the US. So, technically, in that respect, we are 1 day ahead of them
Same problem, not unique to 7th day theory or lunar theory.

sometimes it amuses me the lengths one will go to in order to prove themselves right

RESPONSE; the sighting of the sliver has nothing to do with when a month begins. The month will begin whether we see a sliver or not, seeing a sliver is not what makes a Scripture new month. The Hebrew definition for new moon is to rebuild and that happens when the light goes away from the old month no matter what we see, the just shall walk by faith and not by site. The same is true with the 24-hour day, when the light that he called day goes away, the day has ended and another one begins even though we have not seen the light of that day yet.

Everything is based on conjunction including the year, the month, the day, and the week. The conjunction of the moon is a worldwide event but the sliver is not and therefore this is why it was taught in the schools during our Savior's time according to Philo who lived back then. He said they were taugh how to accurately determine conjunction. By doing it this way everyone will be on the same page and each part of the earth will have the honor of bringing in the new month because a different place on earth will be getting dark right at conjunction and it will be the first day of the month and it will go from there, around to everyone. Someone will say that the law goes out from Zion, which is true but Zion is his people and that law that goes out from them teaches that a new month is to rebuild.


Brother Arnold

[LittleKangaDrinkingWine]

The truth is that the scriptures are silent as to what constitutes a New Moon.

What we do have is just a few clues. As Arnold points out, the definition of the New Moon is a renewed moon, but the question begs, what constitutes that renewed moon?

Another clue is that the moon is a beacon (sign, Gen. 1:14), which means a light that has to be seen. History makes the case that the month only has 28 days. These days are the lighted moon days. All cultures other than Hebrew only recognized 28 days of the month, except the Hebrews. These days were days 2-29 of any given month. The other days, (days 1 and 30 or dark days of the moon) were not counted in the month.

Thus all I can conclude from this information is that the dark days of the moon's phases are New Moon days. When light comes back into the moon, the new moon period is over. Likewise, when light disappears from the moon, the new moon period has begun.

That is why Troy Miller and I are now looking heavily to the end of the month to call the up coming New Moon, trying to learn what the signs in the heavens, at the end of the month, are telling us.

If the moon is visible on the 29th right before sun rise, then we're thinking it is a sign that it will be a two day new moon. If the moon is not visible, it will be a one day New Moon.

Many poo-poo the visiblity aspect of the New Moon. I used to be in this camp, but at the end of the day, we simply can not discount the fact that the signs in the heavens have to be observed and calculated, not simply calculated only.

LKDW

[BrotherArnold]

The truth is that the scriptures are silent as to what constitutes a New Moon.

What we do have is just a few clues. As Arnold points out, the definition of the New Moon is a renewed moon, but the question begs, what constitutes that renewed moon?

Another clue is that the moon is a beacon (sign, Gen. 1:14), which means a light that has to be seen. History makes the case that the month only has 28 days. These days are the lighted moon days. All cultures other than Hebrew only recognized 28 days of the month, except the Hebrews. These days were days 2-29 of any given month. The other days, (days 1 and 30 or dark days of the moon) were not counted in the month.

Thus all I can conclude from this information is that the dark days of the moon's phases are New Moon days. When light comes back into the moon, the new moon period is over. Likewise, when light disappears from the moon, the new moon period has begun.

That is why Troy Miller and I are now looking heavily to the end of the month to call the up coming New Moon, trying to learn what the signs in the heavens, at the end of the month, are telling us.

If the moon is visible on the 29th right before sun rise, then we're thinking it is a sign that it will be a two day new moon. If the moon is not visible, it will be a one day New Moon.

Many poo-poo the visiblity aspect of the New Moon. I used to be in this camp, but at the end of the day, we simply can not discount the fact that the signs in the heavens have to be observed and calculated, not simply calculated only.

LKDW

RESPONSE; I agree we have to see what the moon is doing and that the moon is a beacon (sign, Gen. 1:14), which means a light that has to be seen. I look at a beacon as something that goes off and on and when the beacon goes off another beacon is about to come on the instant the other one went off.

I also agree that the dark days of the moon's phases are New Moon days, and when light comes back into the moon, the new moon period is over but I believe this happens regardless of if we see it or not, Likewise when light disappears from the moon, the new moon period has begun regardless if seen or not.

All one really has to know is know when the conjunction is, and Remember the gates that faced the East would have been where the last cresent is seen.

Brother Arnold

[YHWHsavesdotcom]

From merely the practical aspect of observation we have counterbalances or 'checks and balances' built into the system. One can know exactly when the chodesh period will occur by observation of the exact time that 'full moon' happens; and vice versa. If on the 14th day of the month, you look toward the rise of the full moon in the east and it rises in the east as a nearly full waxing gibbeous, its a clear bet that the following month will have a two day chodesh. Whereas if the full moon which comes up is right at or just after sunset and is either undeterminable as to whether it is a waning or waxing gibbeous or is clearly a waning gibbeous, then you know the following month will have only a 1 day chodesh at its head/beginning. As you practice, you can get so much better that you can actually lose track of days and still be able to accurately determine the day you are in according to the phases associated with each of them. So in addition to telling you what day of the month you are in, you can also determine if the following month will be a one or two day chodesh period by observation done in advance as regards any day of a phase of the moon cycle. The first half of the cycle of the moon is always PERFECTLY mirrored in the second half...which also tells us the begin of the next. Practice makes perfect.

ObedYah

[kathybyers2000]

have to try that out - thanks for the info ObedYah.

Shalom,

Kathy

[JMSchattke]

The book of Enoch says "When light first enters the moon"

Other than that - David is remarking to Jonathan in one passage that "see, tomorrow is the new moon" - he might have either known this because there was no moon that night, or because there was a final sliver. We don't know.

Scripture seems to assume you just "know".

[YHWHsavesdotcom]

The Books of Enoch (there are many variant manuscripts...I believe I have owned and studied all of them at some point) also speak of the 'houses of the sun' within the context of a 364 day solar year. Because of this little extra-biblical detail (and many others) that 'Enoch' seems to contain, 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.

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.

Now it just doesn't make sense to my mind, that has been trained to look for patterns that give insight into 'higher truths', of which they are mere shadows, not to recognize the superiority of this 'common sense' approach to understanding YHWH's division of time as opposed to some tradition that makes no sense at all. It seems to be based in tradition which comes from the era when 'conflicting calendars' were the talk of the day. It took many years for the 'Lunar Month' to be replaced with a 'solar' month. It was a very gradual change in understanding that came INCRIMENTALLY. Incrimentalism is the tool that Satan must use to get men to call darkness light and vice versa.

But these ante-typical shadows are only tools which YHWH has given us in order to discover greater truths which we otherwise would not know. The signs are all tied together in unity. Enoch Just plain doesn't 'jive' with the testimony of what we know IS canonical regarding the 'otot' or 'ordinances' by which these 'teaching tools' are to be understood as 'ante-types' assisting us in seeing the REALITY which they PERFECTLY MIRROR. Enoch is (at the very least) a distraction to seeing YHWH's calendrical issues clearly.

[eriqbenel]

ObedYah,

That is good stuff! My theological respect for you is growing day by day.

Thanks,

[JMSchattke]

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?

[chuckbaldwin]

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.

Hello YS.C,

What's an "otot"?

[BrotherArnold]

Someone wrote,

"The truth is that the scriptures are silent as to what constitutes a New Moon."

RESPONSE

If this were true, then it would also be true that we cannot keep any of the feast that He commands us to keep. We could not Keep the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh moon if we did not know when the first day of the seventh moon began. This is truth.

[JMSchattke]

Someone wrote,
"The truth is that the scriptures are silent as to what constitutes a New Moon.
RESPONSE;
If this were true, then it would also be true that we cannot keep any of the feast that He commands us to keep. We could not Keep the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh moon if we did not know when the first day of the seventh moon began. This is truth.

Well, then - I suppose you have the scriptures at hand that describe a new moon?

[BrotherArnold]

Someone wrote,
"The truth is that the scriptures are silent as to what constitutes a New Moon."

RESPONSE;
If this were true, then it would also be true that we cannot keep any of the feast that He commands us to keep. We could not Keep the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh moon if we did not know when the first day of the seventh moon began. This is truth.

Well, then - I suppose you have the scriptures at hand that describe a new moon?

RESPONSE:
it's called deductive reasoning, it must be used to determine the beginning of the year, the week, and the day.

Do you honestly believe we can keep any of the appointments without knowing the above??? Is this what you are suggesting?


When we understand that everything works from conjunction, the calendar is easy. i.e. when one thing ends another begins. This is true with the year, the month, and the day. The week comes after six workdays and the workdays can be determined by using the Scripture along with deductive reasoning also. People try to make things harder than they are. The true scriptural calendar is hidden in simplicity.

[eriqbenel]

Someone wrote,
"The truth is that the scriptures are silent as to what constitutes a New Moon."
RESPONSE;
If this were true, then it would also be true that we cannot keep any of the feast that He commands us to keep. We could not Keep the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh moon if we did not know when the first day of the seventh moon began. This is truth.

Well, then - I suppose you have the scriptures at hand that describe a new moon?

Does is make sense at all that YHWH would command us to keep an appointment such as the New Moon of the 7th month as a memorial or any other appointment that must be counted from the New Moon and then be SILENT as to how to find it???? That is ridiculous gone crazy!

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of El; and the firmameint shows his handywork.

All we have to do is watch and learn. If YHWH put you in a room with a square hole and a square peg and commanded you to put the peg in the hole, but didn't give you specific instructions, how long would you sit there claiming that YHWH was "silent" on how to do it?!

Arnold is correct that deductive reasoning and common sense are the key. There are many things that the Scriptures aren't specific about that we know to do or not do by deductive reasoning or common sense. Example:

The Scriptures don't specifically address drugs, or pedophilia, or processed cheese. But sorting through what we DO know of YHWH in similar areas and commands would lead any person with just a little horse sense to understand that these things are wrong!

If you don't know when a New Moon is, or how to put a square peg in a square hole, then maybe you should consult somebody who has figured it out by watching and some common sense.

[JMSchattke]

Well, now, Arnold says "conjunction"; he denies Enoch has any bearing, because that says "when light first enters". The Jews say sightable sliver, yet a third choice.

So, yeah, I'm at a loss. I honestly do not know for certain that I'm not a day late - or maybe a day early. I know for a fact that going and adding "postponements" is unscriptural, though. So I don't delay a month's start because it might be inconvenient.

At this point, the ONLY place in any sort of writing is Enoch, so I'm going by that. But if that means I would not fellowship with other believers, I ALSO will celebrate on whatever day they use, because that way I can encourage and discuss with them.