When seeking the calendar that is most likely described by the biblical text we must first establish some core principles by which we can evaluate proposed candidates. These principles claim no authority beyond the unbreakable word of God; they are simply what must follow if we hold that Scripture is true, sufficient, and cannot be added to, subtracted from, or made too difficult for the ordinary believer to obey.

If we accept—as the foundation of this inquiry—that every word of God is pure (Prov. 30:5), that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all is fulfilled (Matt. 5:18), and that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), then the following evaluative criteria are not optional preferences, personal biases, or competing traditions. They are inescapable deductions from the text itself. Any calendar system that fails these tests necessarily contradicts or adds to the written revelation, which Scripture forbids.

The principles in this chapter derive their neutrality from three interlocking biblical axioms:

1. God alone is the lawgiver and judge (Isa. 33:22; James 4:12). No human institution, court, tradition, or calculation can legislate or alter what God has already declared.
2. We are commanded neither to add to nor take away from His words (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19). Any rule, postponement, calculation method, or interpretive authority not explicitly present or clearly implied, or narratively demonstrated in Scripture is an addition that Scripture itself prohibits.
3. The commands of God are not too difficult, but are near us…so that we may do them (Deut. 30:11–14). Therefore, the means of discerning and obeying the appointed times must be accessible to the ordinary person wherever they go in the world.

Because these axioms are non-negotiable within the premise that Scripture is true and unbreakable, the derived principles are not "biased toward observation" or "against rabbinic views." They are simply the logical boundary conditions that any proposed calendar must satisfy to remain faithful to the text. In this light, the following principles are not one side of a debate; they are the scriptural guardrails that define the boundaries of the debate.

Chief among these principles is whether understanding time requires one to know math, astronomy, and how to calculate the calendar or whether everyone should be able to look at the sky and discern the appointed times by observation alone. A related question: are observations objective or subjective and who has authority to interpret the observations? Some might ask why is this even relevant?

This is relevant because God commanded us to keep his Sabbath Holy and to remember his appointed times. While it could be argued that many commands only apply to priests in the temple, some of these commands require all people to appear or perform actions on specific dates such as Passover and Day of Atonement and there are grave consequences prescribed to those who fail to obey.

Also on the 10th day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you…For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that does any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.

— Leviticus 23:29-30

This command applies to all people, requires all people to know the day of the month, and failure to obey it results in the extreme consequence of being cut off. Thankfully we have the blood of Yeshua to cover our unintentional sins, but once we are saved we should desire to obey his commands with all of our heart, mind, body and soul. Thus we should be able to identify this day and afflict ourselves as instructed or else we continue sin.

With this underlying motivation that applies to all people, we must evaluate what calendar system all people are capable of following and being accountable to. Consider that scripture directly tells us that the commands are not too difficult or beyond our reach:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

— Deuteronomy 30:11

We now have a metric by which we can judge calendars: are they beyond the reach of the average man armed only with a Bible? Do they require an elite group of astronomers and mathematicians to discern? Any calendar that is only viable with modern technology and speed of light communication is extremely suspect because it would have been beyond the reach of people 3500 years ago. I argue that the calendar should be so simple to understand that a 12 year old or younger could reliably follow it without any outside authority. Consider that the youngest King of Israel was 7 years old; therefore one could argue that this is an age of some level accountability.

Given the consequences for failure to obey, it seems logical that there is an objective standard — that the times themselves are holy and our failure to read the clock properly doesn't change the holy times. God makes reference to a calendar and gives commands relative to this objective calendar. He does not prescribe a process, which if followed, allows man to change the times and appointed times. In fact any change to the appointed times is the spirit of Antichrist.

He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law.

— Daniel 7:25

The next principle that this book will leverage is that the Bible often demonstrates things implicitly in the storyline rather than explicitly as instruction. Yeshua lived a perfect, sin-free, life; therefore, his life is a demonstration of the true calendar even if he never once explicitly addressed the calendar.

Some people use Yeshua's lack of explicit statements as confirmation of the assumed inherited Jewish calendar; however, that is a circular argument that ignores the documented reality that there may have been major divisions between what was officially practiced in the Temple and what was practiced throughout the countryside outside of Jerusalem. Josephus described the tension between the Sadducees who held the highest positions and the Pharisees who held favor with the masses. The Sadducees tended to stick to only what was in scripture. Therefore, we must avoid the circular logic caused by survivorship bias when testing calendars.

Map vs Territory

Before going forward we must get a clear understanding of the difference between the map and the territory or actual land — because this distinction is what allows us to test claims without falling into circular reasoning. There are an infinite number of maps, but only one territory or physical reality. Proving a map existed 2000 years ago does not prove that it was accurate or even that it was in use. We can prove many different maps existed and they all disagree with each other.

A calendar is a map of time and the physical reality is YHWH's appointed times. If you want to test a map, you must go out into the physical world and see if the map accurately directs you to your destination.

If you want to test a calendar, we must know with near certainty that a particular point in time was one of YHWH's appointed times and we must know this without a direct or indirect circular reference back to an assumed calendar. Just because your map says the treasure is buried under the X, doesn't mean the X is in the right place. Instead we must first find some treasure, then see what maps have an X in the right place.

Scripture & The Calendar

The first thing you will discover when searching for the scriptural evidence that the month starts with with the dark or sliver moon is that everyone references books outside the cannon. The book of Enoch, Jubilees, or Sirach are examples. This opens up a broader debate about whether these books are indeed "flawless scripture" or merely commentary on scripture or even writings of false prophets? However, if they contradict the canonical scriptures then they cannot be trusted for doctrine. In other words, these extra-biblical books could be just another source documenting the tradition of men we were warned to avoid.

If canonical scriptures didn't say anything about the moon, then we have no basis to judge or test these extra-biblical books to know whether what they are adding is consistent with known scripture. But if the scriptures do provide even a hint of evidence in a different direction, then we start to have an argument that these non-canonical books are clearly not scripture. So while extra-biblical books can be useful confirmation of concepts proven by canonical scriptures, they cannot be relied upon to introduce new doctrines such as calendars.

It is my contention that the calendar is such a critical key to understanding prophecy and knowing Him and his laws and statutes that His calendar will be imbedded implicitly throughout the canonical text in a way that is hard to corrupt.

Consider for a moment if the scriptures were too overt in describing the calendar, then the enemy would have a very easy target to corrupt with the change of a word or two. But if the scriptures capture evidence of the calendar indirectly then it wouldn't be an obvious target to corrupt.

So those advocating the sliver or dark moon who admit right out of the gate that they have little to no canonical evidence for a sliver or dark moon have already conceded the point. In the chapter When Does the Month Start? I present an abundance of verses from the cannon that support a full moon. This leaves a high burden for Enoch, Jubilees, and Sirach to overcome to be considered scripture that doesn't contradict the cannon.

All of that said, because dark and sliver mooners rely on tradition and other works, it might be a case that they just haven't dug deep enough to find the evidence in the cannon. This is a wake up call to stop relying on tradition and start looking for real evidence and avoiding logical fallacies.

Summary of Principles

Here is the broad, standalone criteria derived from the highest principles that can test any proposed calendar system for biblical fidelity.

1. Commands Are Accessible to All: God's instructions, including appointed times, are straightforward and within reach for ordinary people, so the calendar must be simple enough for anyone—including children—to understand and follow without specialized knowledge.
2. Universal Personal Accountability: Holy days apply to every individual, with serious consequences for non-observance; everyone must be able to reliably identify the correct dates.
3. Connected to Sun, Moon, and Stars: The bible explicitly states that the sun, moon and stars are for signs and appointed times and days and years. These lights are the hands on God's celestial clock; therefore, any calendar must remain synchronized with the heavens.
4. Objective, Unchangeable Holy Times: Appointed times are fixed and holy by divine decree; human failure to discern them does not alter their sanctity, and no process is given for man to modify them, instead we must seek and discover them like other natural laws of physics.
5. Implicit Demonstration in Narrative: Scripture reveals truth through lived examples, not just explicit written rules
6. Agricultural/Seasonal Alignment: Ensures calendars maintain harmony with natural cycles, preventing holy days from drifting out of commanded seasons for decades, centuries, and millennia.
7. Practical Global Decentralized Observation: Assesses whether a calendar supports biblical unity while allowing practical accessibility over all time periods.

It is with these principles that this book will dive deep and test everything so we can hold that that which is good. But before we go further we must address alleged Rabbinic authority.

Some may immediately object that these principles are biased against a calculated calendar and fail to account for authority given to elders. They may claim calendar chaos if a centralized authority is removed and elevate unity over perfection. I ask you to consider that to a secular audience all lunar calendars are pure chaos with their months drifting relative to the familiar Gregorian calendar. The chaos is not related to the calendar, but to the conversion from one calendar to another. If the lunar calendar were the sole calendar then no one would experience any chaos.

The true source of chaos is human authorities abusing authority to interpret the signs in the sun, moon, and stars. When their opinion is binding regardless of the objective reality, they have used it for political means. The Julian and Gregorian calendars solved this by removing almost all subjective interpretation except the exact location of the international dateline which remains subject to political manipulation.

There is nothing wrong with using calculation so long as the calculation does not produce a different result than the observation would. The heavens are the ground truth, the means by which God has declared his times and speaks his calendar to us.

He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.

— Psalms 104:19

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

— Psalms 19:1-4

Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged."

— Romans 3:4

Regardless of what calculations we make or what opinions those who claim authority pronounce, God's word spoken through the stars reveal the truth and in light of this truth, all contrary opinions are lies and all men liars. We are all accountable to God's truth regardless of the lies told by men.

The Myth of 'Proper' Hermeneutical Principles

You've probably been there—I know I have. As someone who's spent years digging into Scripture, teaching others to question traditions and seek the plain, logical meaning of the text, I've lost count of the times fellow Bible teachers or seminary grads have dismissed my interpretations with that smug line: "You just don't understand proper hermeneutical principles." As if invoking this academic-sounding label instantly wins the argument, like waving a magic wand of authority. It's frustrating, isn't it? They act like these "principles" are some objective, divinely ordained toolkit for unlocking the Bible, when in reality, they're often just a smokescreen for rationalization, circular reasoning, and control. In this chapter, we're going to pull back the curtain on this charade. We'll expose how common this appeal is in both Jewish and Christian circles, define what these so-called principles really are, hunt for a "complete list" (spoiler: good luck finding one that's truly universal), and then dissect them one by one—highlighting the good (if any), the bad (the misapplications), and the ugly (the inherent dishonesty that makes them tools for bias rather than truth). If I'm wrong and these principles actually hold up as genuine, objective rules anyone can follow without falling into traps, I'll lay out the case fairly. But based on logic, Scripture, and a healthy dose of discernment, I suspect we'll find they're more about propping up traditions than revealing God's intent.

Let's start with how pervasive this is. In rabbinic Judaism, "hermeneutical principles" are baked into the system—think Talmudic debates where rabbis wield the 13 middot (rules) of Rabbi Yishmael like a sledgehammer to derive halakha (law) from the Torah. Seminaries like Yeshiva University or the Hebrew Union College teach these as foundational, training students to see them as the bridge between written and oral Torah. It's so ingrained that questioning them feels like heresy; after all, they're supposedly from Sinai itself. Flip to Christian circles, and it's eerily similar. Evangelical seminaries—Dallas Theological Seminary, Westminster, and many others—hammer home "biblical hermeneutics" in required courses, often drawing from texts like Gordon Fee's How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth or R.C. Sproul's guidelines. Liberal seminaries like Harvard Divinity or Union Theological add postmodern twists, but the core idea persists: "Follow these principles, or your interpretation is invalid." Pastors parrot this in pulpits, Bible study leaders use it to shut down debate, and online forums are full of it. Why? It gives the illusion of objectivity while letting "experts" gatekeep truth.

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

— Proverbs 18:17

So, what exactly are "hermeneutical principles"? At their simplest, they're supposed to be structured rules or guidelines for interpreting texts—in this case, the Bible. The word "hermeneutics" comes from the Greek hermeneuo, meaning "to interpret" or "explain," tied to Hermes, the messenger god. In biblical studies, these principles claim to provide a methodical way to extract meaning, avoiding wild speculation. For Jews, they're midrashic tools to expand the Torah into practical laws. For Christians, they're often framed as "historical-grammatical" methods to honor the text's original context and intent. Sounds noble, right? But here's the rub: these aren't neutral algorithms. They're human constructs, often retrofitted to justify preconceived doctrines. They promise clarity but deliver subjectivity, assuming layers of "hidden meaning" that only the initiated can access—echoing the Gnostic error Paul warned against in Colossians 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition."

Now, where can one go to find a "complete list" of these principles? That's the first red flag—there isn't one definitive, universally agreed-upon canon. For rabbinic Judaism, the go-to is the Baraita of Rabbi Yishmael in the Sifra (a midrash on Leviticus), listing 13 middot. You can find it in the Talmud (e.g., Sanhedrin 86a) or online at sites like Sefaria.org. But even there, variations exist—some lump rules together, others expand Hillel's original seven. For Christians, it's even more fragmented. No single "complete" list exists; instead, you'll find compilations in seminary textbooks like Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck (12 principles) or Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes by Henry Virkler (focusing on 7-10 core ones). Evangelical sites like GotQuestions.org or Bible.org offer summaries, but they differ—some emphasize literalism, others typology. Liberal scholars add "reader-response" or "feminist hermeneutics." If these were true principles—like gravity or math axioms—they'd be consistent and verifiable. Instead, they're cafeteria-style: pick what fits your theology. This alone exposes the dishonesty; invoking "proper principles" often means "my school's list, not yours."

With that foundation, let's dissect the key ones. I'll start with the rabbinic 13 middot, as they're the archetype many Christian principles borrow from, then pivot to common Christian adaptations. For each, I'll highlight the good (logical potential), the bad (common abuses), and the ugly (core flaws that make them unreliable "principles").

1. A Fortiori Inference: Inferring from minor to major (e.g., if A is true in a lenient case, it's truer in a strict one).

Good: This mirrors basic deductive logic—if Scripture says God provides for birds (Matthew 6:26), how much more for us? It's forward-looking and testable.

Bad: Rabbis use it to extrapolate laws without bounds, like turning a minor ritual into a major prohibition, ignoring context.

Ugly: It's unfalsifiable; you can always argue "how much more" to fit your agenda, assuming escalation without proof. Not a principle—more a slippery slope fallacy.

2. Verbal Analogy: Linking verses with similar words to apply laws across them.

Good: Encourages cross-referencing, like connecting "Sabbath" usages for consistency.

Bad: Words get twisted—e.g., same root in unrelated contexts forces artificial links, overriding plain meaning.

Ugly: Circular: Rabbis claim only tradition validates which analogies are "valid," creating an elite gatekeeper class. If anyone could use it, chaos; but restricting it exposes bias, not objectivity.

3. Building a Principle from One or Two Verses: Deriving a general rule from specific examples.

Good: Builds patterns, like inferring mercy from multiple forgiveness stories.

Bad: Overgeneralizes—two verses on tithing become universal mandates, ignoring cultural shifts.

Ugly: Assumes isolated verses "build" without whole-Bible harmony; prone to confirmation bias, where you cherry-pick to "build" what you want.

4-6. General-Specific-General: Rules for when broad statements are limited or expanded by details.

Good: Respects structure—e.g., a general command ("love your neighbor") clarified by specifics (Leviticus 19).

Bad: Endless debates on what's "general" vs. "specific," leading to legalistic hairsplitting.

Ugly: Self-referential; rabbis define categories to resolve ambiguities in their favor, embodying rationalization over deduction.

7-11. Something in General That Comes Out: Exceptions teaching about the whole or new matters.

Good: Handles outliers logically.

Bad: Creates loopholes—e.g., an exception for one law morphs into exemptions everywhere.

Ugly: Unfalsifiable layering; "comes out" implies hidden depths only experts see, echoing esoteric knowledge Jesus condemned (Matthew 23:13).

12. Learned from Context: Interpret by surrounding verses.

Good: Basic common sense—context is king.

Bad: "Context" stretched to include distant traditions.

Ugly: Selective; ignores broader canon if it contradicts local "inyano."

13. Two Contradicting Verses Resolved by Third: Harmonize apparent conflicts.

Good: Promotes unity, like reconciling grace and works via Ephesians 2:8-10.

Bad: Forces harmony where none exists, rationalizing away tensions.

Ugly: Assumes no real contradictions, begging the question; the "third" verse is often cherry-picked.

Shifting to Christian hermeneutics, which often repackage these with a Protestant twist, but inherit the same issues:

Literal/Historical-Grammatical Method: Seek plain meaning in original context.

Good: Aligns with Scripture's clarity (Psalm 119:105).

Bad: "Literal" bends for allegories, like in Revelation.

Ugly: Claims objectivity but smuggles biases—e.g., dispensationalists vs. covenant theologians read the same text differently.

Let Scripture Interpret Scripture (Analogy of Faith): Clear verses explain obscure.

Good: Deductive harmony.

Bad: "Clear" is subjective—your clear verse is my obscure.

Consider Genre and Context: Adjust for poetry, history, etc.

Good: Avoids wooden literalism.

Bad: Genres redefined to fit doctrines (e.g., Genesis as "myth").

Ugly: No fixed genre rules—academics invent categories, echoing rabbinic midrash.

Authorial Intent and Cultural Background: What the writer meant.

Good: Respects human authors under inspiration.

Bad: Speculative—we can't mind-read ancients.

Ugly: Relies on extra-biblical "experts," introducing secular biases.

Do these meet the definition of a true "principle"—an objective, universal rule that can be followed consistently without bias? Objectively, no. A real principle, like deductive logic (premises to conclusion), is verifiable and falsifiable. These are broadly elastic, self-serving frameworks that empower interpreters over the text.

To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn (light).

— Isaiah 8:20

Let's ditch the gatekeepers and return to Scripture alone—testing everything, holding fast to what's good. That's a "principle" worth following.