I should add that you may be right that Catholicism resists this reform initially, maybe even throughout the rest of its existence, but as I state above, it would be consistent with its character to endorse the calendar. If it does not, we still have the final beast of Revelation 13, the image beast which I believe is the religion of the New World Order. This final image beast is likely the one under which calendar reform will be made IMO.

Mark,

- Would the Lord give such a complicated calendar for His people to follow? A week every 8 years, a second week every 32 years, and I myself lost track of things at the last part (320, 560, 4,480...)

- I didn’t understand why the intercalations have to be made using weeks if four days are arbitrarily intercalated at the end of each year, or one day at the end of each quarter.

- It is clear that the AB calendar is a 364-day calendar and not a 360-day calendar. If it was a 360-day calendar no intercalation would be made yearly, but just periodically. If some days were to be intercalated yearly, the logical intercalation would be of five days (as in the Egyptian calendar), not of four days.

For someone not familiar with calendars my method may seem complex, but if you compare it to the Gregorian calendar, it is about the same level of complexity (neither one is sophisticated) and the method that I'm suggesting was used anciently is a little more accurate than our modern calendar.

The Qumran scholars agree that the 364 day part of the calendar is intercalated in units of weeks. They know that because the New Year is always a Wednesday. From that fact they know that the smallest intercalation unit that would be possible is a week.

The AB calendar does not say that the solar year is intercalated using a week, but it is strongly implied. For example, both the year of 364 days and the four quarters of 91 days are divisable by seven stongly suggesting that one of the purposes of the solar year/calendar is to preserve the weekly cycle. So the Qumran community is correct in how they have interpreted and applied the AB calendar IMO on this issue.

I downloaded the Jaurez book Rosangela and have to say, it shows that a lot of effort was expended.

I read the first 20 or so pages so I have an idea of what is being said, but the electronic version of the book has no table of contents or index. Can you post the parts you're referring to that would change the October date to the 23rd. You may think that is my spin, but really, I think that would be the result. My understanding of Oct 22 is that when the sun went down that day, the Millerites were heart broken. It was the morning of the 23rd as they were trying to regain their composure that Hiram Edson and his friend walking through the cornfield was vividly impressed with the thought that Christ had come on Oct 22 to the heavenly sanctuary rather than to the earth.

As more evidence comes to light on the nature of the ancient Hebrew calendar, Adventists need to take a fresh look at their assumptions - the main one being that the Rabbinical or Karaite calendars were in use anciently in Israel.

Mark,

Read chapter four (IV), and afterwards we can discuss the details.

Rosangela, Juarez is correct IMO on the issue of the timing of the Day of Atonement in 1844. He says the Millerites observed that the Day of Atonement should be calculated according to Jerusalem time which would mean that it started at about 10AM Boston time on the 22nd and ended 24 hours later on the 23rd. I agree.

Juarez also quotes the account of Hiram Edson. In my last post, I was mistaken that Edson and the Millerites lost hope at sundown. The account says they lost hope at the midnight of the 22nd. Juarez shows that while many of them believed the Day of Atonement was not completely over until 10AM of the 23rd, Boston time, rightly or wrongly, according to the account of Edson, they did not expect Christ to come after midnight of the 22nd.

But Juarez has made several other important statements in that chapter that support what I am saying regarding the use of the AB calendar anciently:

quote:

---

When we examine the calendar in use at the beginning of the prophetic period, in Ezra’s time, it is found that in the calendar of the Elephantine Jews of that time (which shows a close harmony of dates with the Babylonian calendar ) the new year never began earlier than the vernal equinox. Though these are Elephantine dates, the Jews who settled there must have preserved the calendrical practices brought from Israel. Besides, they were in correspondence with their brethren in Palestine,8 who returned from Babylon in the beginning of the reign of Cyrus, and must have wished to keep their calendar, as far as possible, in harmony with the calendar in Jerusalem; therefore, their calendar can give us a close idea of how the calendar in Jerusalem was like.

---

After stating the above, Juarez suggests this is evidence that the Karaite method of reckoning is used, but the probability of having no early springs in Palestine anciently is very slim. I would suggest what is being observed here is actually much stronger evidence that the AB calendar or a calendar with similar rules which uses the vernal equinox as the starting point of both the lunar and solar years was in use at the time.

Juarez goes on and notes that the contemporary Samaritans also followed the same practise:

quote:

---

The Samaritan records also show that their method of determining the New Year was on the new moon subsequent to the equinox and not before it, although it appears that at some point in time they began to hold to a fixed 25 March equinox, which they still observe. Page 88-9

---

At page 101 Juarez states that until we definitely know the starting date of 457 BC, we have to rely on 31AD as the anchor date. But my reply, Juarez, is that we have the testimony of Genesis, written by Moses that a calendar was in place before the Exodus. The account of the flood makes that clear. The implication from this and other statements such as in Exodus 12:40, it that the Feasts were fit within that divine calendar. It is up to us to piece that calendar together using all Biblical calendrical statements. The evidence continues to mount that the AB calendar is the only one that provides all of the answers and is the only one in complete harmony with all calendrical statements found in scripture.

Regarding the first fruits sheaf offering, Rosangela, which the Karaites use to mark the beginning of the new year, it is understandable why the Jews would look to the books of Moses to find a rule. They, the Millerites and Adventists have thought that since this feast is the only one that does not have a set date, that it sets the beginning of the year. But there is a better explanation for the lack of a date, which is that this particular feast does and must be variable depending as it does on the stage of growth of the grain crops. Since the books of Moses indicate that a calendar was already in place, the feasts fit within that calendar. But a feast that is tied to the ripeness of a crop cannot have a fixed date.

In support of that idea is the fact that the type of grain is not specified in Lev. 23. The Karaites say barley, but the text does not specify. God provided here that the Jews were free to introduce new varieties of grain, and the one that ripened first would be the proper one to offer because verses 10 to 17 make two points clear: 1) That as a first fruits waive offering, like all first fruits offerings, the waive sheaf stands as a substitute and in the place of the rest of all the grain crops in Isreal for the year, and 2) as such, no other grain crop may be eaten until the first fruits are offered. So the Mosaic law intends that whichever crop is headed out first, a waive sheaf from that crop is the proper one to offer. After that, the nation is free to begin consuming the grain of the new year of all varieties as the varieties ripen in their turn.

Mark,

You are confusing things. The only feast which does not have a fixed calendar date is Pentecost, which begins to be counted from the day when the wave sheaf is presented, and the wave sheaf is presented on the morrow after the Sabbath during Passover Week. This means that Pentecost would always fall on a Sunday, but the calendar date would be variable.

Abib indicates a stage in the development of the barley crops. This is clear from Ex 9: 31, 32 which describes the devastation caused by the plague of hail:

"And the flax and the barley were smitten, because the barley was Abib and the flax was Giv'ol. And the wheat and the spelt were not smitten because they were dark (Afilot)."

Barley is and has always been the first grain to ripen in Palestine.

Penticost, Rosangela, is set by the waiving of the sheaf, agreed? It comes 50 days afterwards. But regarding the timing of the sheaf of first fruits, the text says the sheaf was waved ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’. That is all it says. Modern Jews, if I remember correctly, think this means the sheaf is waived the day after the Passover which is a Sabbath according to them (and I think they are correct that Passover is a Sabbath because it is a day of rest), but the text only states that the sheaf should be waived after a Sabbath, and the reason for this is very practical - it may not be ripe until a week or two or more after the Passover. So the text only requires the waiving to take place after the Passover or after a subsequent Sabbath. Isn’t that a more reasonable explanation than taking the provision to be the marker of the New Year? Whose position agrees better with the account of Creation that the sun and moon should mark the seasons, not the crops?

But regarding the plague, you are reading more into the text than is there, and one of the tests is whether your position is reasonable. If the Lord knew that barley would always be the first grain to ripen, I think He would have been specific. God is always specific when He wants to be. Since He does not specify, it is a mistake to be more specific than Him. That is the downfall of the Rabbinical Jews – being more specific than God is and reading more into the text than is there and in this way displacing scripture with human reasoning. No, God wanted the Hebrews to be free to introduce other crops. He placed no restrictions of which grains the He had created they could eat. If your position is followed, and the Isrealites found an earlier ripening grain that they liked, they would not have been able to cultivate it.

Mark,

The subject is very simple. There are several grains cultivated in Palestine but the first grain to ripen after the winter is barley.

The story of the Exodus relates that the Israelites left Egypt "in the month of the Abib" (Ex 13: 4). And God told them that that month should be the first month of the year for them (Ex. 12:2). We know that the grain that was Abib at that month was barley (Ex. 9: 31, 32). So Abib is the month when barley ripens. Any biblical dictionary or commentary will tell you that.

Christ “was the antitype of the wave sheaf, and His resurrection took place on the very day when the wave sheaf was to be presented before the Lord” {DA 785}. After His resurrection Christ remained 40 days on earth (Acts 1:3), and “after the ascension of Christ, the Holy Spirit did not immediately descend. There were ten days after His ascension before the Holy Spirit was given.” {TDG 10.2}. Everything perfectly synchronized – exactly 50 days until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Christ’s resurrection occurred on Sunday – the day of the wave sheaf. Did it occur on Sunday because this day was after the weekly Sabbath (as the Karaites say) or because it was after the festival Sabbath (as the Rabbanites say)? It must be for the first reason, because the year 31 A.D. does not admit a Nisan 14 as the day for Christ’s death.