Appendix A | Gospelofcreation1

About

SIDE BAR NOTES

[1] The Cosmic Back-ground Energy (discovered by Bell Labs in 1964) is the residual noise that still permeates the universe to give witness of the initial enormity of the Big Bang.

[2] Ross 2008.

[3] Hoyle and Wickram-asinghe 1978.

[4] … any older and it is believed the estimated matter of the universe would be too dispersed to stop the expansion. [5] For a simple web explanation see the Wikipedia entry on Dark Energy. [6] But this does not mean that the atheist argument is dead, because there can never be an ironclad proof of the existence of a Creator. That would negate the need for faith. It is saying, however, that the more the empirical evidence in favor of God mounts, the more contrived the atheist's argument is becoming.

[7] Weisberger 2020. And this meteorite, which struck Australia in 1969 is also remarkable for the optically active amino acids it contains. These compounds are produced on earth, too, but generally only by living organisms. [8] Baker 2024.

[9] It also shows that, had they only looked, the 2/3rds Rule might have easily been discovered by geologists decades ago![10] And the only major subdivision seemingly mis-sing on this chart is our Phylum (Chordata), which would lie on the chart between our Kingdom (Animalia) and our Class (Mammalia).

[11] Gn 1:12.

[12] Their fossils are dated at 1.05 Ga (Gibson, et.al. 2018).

[13] It should be pointed out, though, that anachron-isms are not unheard of in Scripture. Compare, for instance, the ordering of the 3 temptations in Mt 4:3-11 and Lk 4:3-13. And, for an Old Testament example, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are rife with anachronisms. Anomaly A16.4 (which see) looks at one of them. [14] Christian apolo-gists have puzzled over this seeming incongruity as far back as Origen's Homilies on Genesis 1, 5 (3rd century AD). And Tal-mudic rabbis have com-mented on it, too.

[15] Gn 1:14-19.

[16] Although somewhat outdated, the term, K-T extinction is still in common use and comes from the German initials for the geological Periods that frame the event. They are the Cretaceous (Kreide) and the Tertiary (Tertiär). The Tertiary Period, however, has since been divided into two smaller Periods (the Paleogene and the Neogene) and the term, Tertiary, is no longer in common use. [17] For references to both esti-mates see Cowen 2000 and Renne, et.al. 2013.

[18] This is determined by tallying the timespans given for the biblical Patriarchs in Gn 5:1-22 and Gn 11:10-26. And by those verses, the Hebrew text computes the span from Adam to the birth of Abraham to be 1,948 years, while the Greek Septuagint has it is 3,414 years.

[19] To name just 3 it included 2 separate fulfill-ments of Daniel's 70 weeks of years prophecy, together with its strongest corrob-oration the way it perfectly aligned his wedding day to the lives of the Jesus and Mary. It did this by occurring precisely two-thirds of the way into his life and coinciding with Mary's wedding being precisely two-thirds of the way into her pregnancy.

[20] Mt 17:24-27.

[21] Referenced in Mt 17:1-9, the Transfiguration has been dated by this study to have occurred on Oct. 7, 32 AD. [22] Referenced in Mt 17:14-2, this study has determined that Jesus gave His disciples the power to expel demons on Jan. 31, 33 AD.

[23] Jn 6:1-15.

[24] Jn 6:16-21.

[25] Jn 6:22-71

[26] Jn 6:68, NABRE.

[27] Jn 6:70, NIV.

[28] Jn 12:4-6.

[29] Dt 25:17-19.

[30] Mk 14:1 sets Judas's betrayal to Spy Wednesday which would have been 13 Nisan in 33 AD. And Est 3:12 sets Haman's treach-ery to the same day. [31] It is debated whether Haman's death described in Est 7:9-10 was by impale-ment or hanging. And Judas's death described in Mt 27:5 and Acts 1:18 displays the same amount of ambiguity..

[32] The 4th Creation milli-Second began on Feb. 1 and ended on Mar. 14.

[33] That would include Shabbat Shirah, Shabbat Shekalim, Shabbat Zakhor, Shabbat Parah, Shabbat HaChodesh and Shabbat HaGadol.

[34] Lv 23:24.

[35] As per the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:9.

[36] Mt 16:18-19. [37] Mt 23:2-3.

[38] A good example of this special relationship God had with the Judean High Priest is found in Jn 11:51.

[39] The synoptic Gospels connect the Last Supper to the Passover Seder meal, setting the Crucifixion to I Pesach (Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7-8). Whereas John's Gospel shows that the Temple priests were slaughtering the Paschal Lambs on the day Jesus was crucified 9 (Jn 19:14), setting it to Erev Pesach. So in assuming both accounts to be accurate, the Temple priests appear to have missed the new moon on the day it would have first been visible to them and declared the new month a day after the Apostles were observing it. [40] This, by the way, also effected the dating of Pentecost. And assuming the Apostles observed it in accord with the Temple, the counting of the Omer would have begun on their understanding of II Pesach (i.e. Resurrection Sunday). [41] And there are several ways the true date of the new moon can be discerned more accurately, obser-vations of the waning moon being one. one.[42] Humphries and Wad-dington 1989. [43] This proposition is not unheard-of. As has been famously pointed out by French scholar, Annie Jaubert, there were many other calendars in use back then besides that of the Temple (Jaubert 1957).

[44] Rabbi Ahai of Shabha (8th century AD) She'iltot iv.

[45] Protevangelion of James (ca. late 1st century AD) translated by Walker 1886, 15-16.

[46] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33 & Lk 23:44.

[47] Wis 18:14-15, DR.

[48] The three exceptions are the times listed for hte Resurrection, the Nativity and the onset of Mary's labor. The timing for the Resurrection is derived from the tradition that Jesus was entombed for 40 hours. And the other two times are derived from the logical interpolation that Mary's labor foreshadowed Christ's entombment.

[49] Jn 1:33.

[50] Lk 3:2.

[51] Lk 1:13. [52] Lk 1:31.

[53] This is the date found after the necessary adjustments are made, as discussed under the previous heading (Anom-aly A13).

[54] Mt 3:13-15.

[55] ... as per Lv 16:8-10, 20-22.

[56] Lv 16:8.

[57] The synoptic Gospels have Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days after His baptism. (Mt 4:1-2, Mk 1:12-13, Lk 4:1-2) But John's Gospel contradicts this, speaking instead of Jesus showing up the next day to beacon His first Apostles (Jn 1:35). In either case, though, Jesus seems to have spent the night in the desert. [58] Mt 26:41 and Ep 6:11, among many others.

[59] Jas 1:13.

[60] 1 Tm 2:4.

[61] CCC 2846.

[62] Ex 14:21 shows that the Sea was split around dusk, with the actual crossing not commencing until the following morning. And Ex 14:24 suggests that the crossing ended around dawn on either the following day, or possibly the day after that. [63] Dt 5:15 suggests the crossing ended on a Sabbath, while tradition also sets 10 Nisan in 1453 BC (the year of the Exodus) to a Sabbath. By that understanding, 24 Nisan would, therefore, also be a Sabbath. And NASA does confirm it would have been (as per table B25 in Appendix B). [64] Ex 12:37 speaks of 600,000 men but when women and children are added it would number more than a million. [65] Due to how shallow it is (compared to other possible sites in the Red Sea), one of the more popular opinions as to the location of the crossing (Nuweiba beach on the Gulf of Aqaba) is still a ten mile hike on a narrow path that can be as much as a half mile deep in spots. [66] Est 3:12.

[67] In accord with Jos 4:19-5:10, the Second Circumcision took place some time between 10 and 14 Nisan. [68] Mt 26:2, 13, Mk 14:1, 9.

[69] Chabad.org 2026.

[70] In the Book of Genesis, the flood began in the 2nd month (Gn 7:11) on Cheshvan (tradition-ally). And by 10 months later (on 1 Av) the flood waters had so diminished that mountaintops could be seen. (Gn 8:5). Then 40 days later on 10 Elul Noah sent out a raven (Gn 8:6-7). And 7 days after that (presumedly) on 17 Elul he sent out a dove. (Gn 8:8). [71] It is the biblical Song of Songs that equates the Jewish people to a dove (Sg 2:14), a point the Midrash writers expounded upon. [72] Gn 8:8-12). [73] Pronechen 2021.

[74] The Israelites reached Mt. Sinai on the 1st day of Sivan (Ex 19:1). They are traditionally understood to have been there for 6 days when they had their Pente-cost encounter with God (Ex 19:2-16). And Moses, having gone up the mountain after that to meet with God was told 40 days later of the holiday (Ex 24:18, 32:7) that presum-edly established on the 15th of Tammuz. [75] Jer 39:2, 2 Kgs 25:6-7.

[76] Zec 8:19.

[77] Mt 16:18.

[78] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 2a.

[79] Ex 22:30.

[80] Dt 21:17.

[81] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 18b.

[82] Radak, Commentary on Jeremiah 41:1.

[83] The Karaite Jewish community being one. See Anomaly A16.4. [84] Jer 41:1.

[85] Just as it is a mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur, it has become a mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom Kippur (The Sulchan Arukh, OC 604:1). [86] Jer 41:4-5.

[87] Zec 8:19.

[88] Mk 9:5-6 suggests the possibility it was the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter when he said it. [89] Espenek and Meeus 2009. [90] It is exactly 180 days from Oct. 7, 32 AD to Apr. 5, 33 AD.

[91] Mt 17:1, Mk 9:2.

[92] CCC 881-882.

[93] Neh 8:1-9:1.

[94] The Babylonian captivity is commonly held to have been a watershed moment for Jewish spirituality, forcing their Priests and Scribes to reinvent their religion by moving it away from Temple worship to focus on the Torah to maintain their identity. And Ezra was in the vanguard for introducing it to the people on their return. [95] Neh 9:1-2 doesn't say this specifically, but, in the use of the term Israelite, it does seem to be implied. [96] Eph 2:19-21.

[97] Karaites.org 2018.

[98] Ezr 3:1-6.

[99] And to make sure there is no confusion as to which Joshua they are referring to he is called out in Neh 8:17 as Joshua, son of Nun.

[100] Ezr 7:1.

[101] 2 Kgs 25:18-21.

[102] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 2a.

[103] Lv 19:23-25.

[104] It is still celebrated today in some Celtic lands as the holiday of Imbolc.

[105] Espenak and Meeus 2009.

[106] Figure A2 provides those times together with their Scriptural refeerences.

[107] These trials will not be published here since they are easily reproduced by anyone so inclined to do so.

[108] The bell curve for Figure A4 was created at statscalculators.com and integrated into the graphic (https://www.statscalculators.com/calculators/chart/bell-curve-graph-generator)

[109] For any who might find this information useful, the improbability of a score being beyond each successive Standard Devi-ation (σ) from 1 to 8 is as follows.

1σ = 1 chance in 3,

2σ = 1 in 22,

3σ = 1 in 370,

4σ = 1 in 16 thousand,

5σ = 1 in 1.7 million,

6σ = 1 in 507 million,

7σ = 1 in 391 billion,

8σ = 1 in 804 trillion,

[110] … with the precedent being set in Lk 15:11-32. And if you are still having trouble, let Jesus walk you there by becoming one with Him in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. It worked for me. And I am certain it will work for anyone. [111] Mt 7:7-11.

Return

Most would hopefully admit that, in the final analysis, the mathematical key promoted in this book has done a rather stellar job of dating significant events in the Creation saga, as understood by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Promising the moon, when thoroughly examined, it’s thrown in the sun and the stars for good measure. And, in short, it’s performed way above expectations, passing every test put to it and then some.

But all these passed tests aside, this does not mean that there haven't been any anomalous findings. In every scientific theory, there are going to be some outliers; data points that don't quite fit with the bigger picture. And sometimes, if big enough, these anomalies can also be fatal to the theory. This would not be the case with the 2/3rds Rule, however. It has its share of anomalies, too. But none are anywhere near what might be considered a fatal flaw.

For instance, if the 2/3rds Rule had failed to provide the dates for any of the major events in Christ’s life (such as those of His conception, birth and baptism) that would be a fatal flaw. Similarly, if the dates it arrived at in New Testament times coincided with no more commemorations on the Hebrew calendar beyond what would be expected by chance, that too would be sufficient grounds to reject the theory. But, as has been shown, the 2/3rds Rule met both of those requirements and all the other criteria needed to prove itself legitimate.

The anomalies found are rather minor issues by comparison. And they are inherent to most every accepted scientific theory. They don’t disprove it. They merely suggest that more work may be needed to fully comprehend it. Or perhaps they’re telling us that all the data is not yet in.

Three have already been discussed in earlier chapters. They are …

The placement of Palm Sunday one-third of the way into the first period of Level VI rather than two-thirds of the way into it (as it is for the second Light in all the other Levels).

The missing Jewish holiday connection to Christmas.

The missing Jewish holiday connection to Holy Wednesday.

And reasonable explanations have been given for all three. But there are other anomalies that are not as easily explained. Again, this doesn’t mean they cannot be explained. It is merely an indication that a totally satisfactory explanation has not yet been found.

For the purpose of listing them, since the anomalies have different characteristics depending on their time period, they are tackled in three sections: the first will discuss those found in the 2/3rds Rule’s take on natural history (defined by Creation Levels I and II); the second will address the anomalies found in the 2/3rds Rule’s take on Salvation History from Adam to the onset of the New Testament (defined by Creation Level III and the first half of Creation Level IV); and the third will discuss the anomalies found in the 2/3rds Rule’s take on the life and times of Christ (defined by the last half of Creation Level IV together with Creation Levels V, VI and VII).

But there is a 4th Section, as well, inserted at the very end of this Appendix. It is devoted to assessing how the overall odds are affected now that the anomalies have been identified and can be factored into the equation. And as might be expected, they don't change things much. That said, and in the interest of full disclosure, the following is an honest attempt to list and discuss all the anomalies that have been uncovered.

Section 1a: The 2/3rds Rule and Natural History (Creation Level I)

There is nothing in our scientific understanding of prehistory that can be dated with 100% accuracy. Every empirically determined date that science gives us from this time has a range of error associated with it. Some of these estimates are more precise than others and, in general, the closer you get to the present the greater the precision. But there is always some amount of uncertainty associated with these estimates. With that in mind, it must be acknowledged that most of the dates generated by the 2/3rds Rule in prehistory are within the range that scientists would consider reasonable. Even at that, however, there are, nevertheless, some predictions that are so far removed from where modern science would place them that they deserve to be called anomalous. And the following, taken from Creation Levels I and II, fall into that category.

A1: The dating of the Big Bang

Some may think this one is an anomaly given that the 2/3rds Rule's estimate for this date, at 15.8 billion years, is so far removed from what is commonly seen in the literature. And that is why it is listed. But on closer inspection it is found that there really is no issue, because there are actually two, equally esteemed, scientific opinions as to the age of our universe. So yes, the more popular of the two places the Big Bang at 13.7 billion years (±1%), which is considerably younger than the 2/3rds Rule's estimate. But the upper limit of the other estimate, which places it at 15 billion years (±5%), is a spot on match. The only difficulty then is not with science but with the bias of those who report on the science. And even though the astronomer who first calculated the older age, Alan Sandage, is one of the most renowned of the modern era, the scientific community still seems to prefer the other estimate.

As a possible explanation, the younger estimate’s greater compatibility with an atheistic view of the cosmos may have something to do with its popularity. And because of that some may see in its popularity the last vestiges of a war cosmologists have been waging against God (and steadily losing) over the past 2 millennia. Its beginnings can be traced, perhaps, to the position of the Classical Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who held, with no evidence to support it, that the lights in the heavens were perfect and eternal. And, for the atheist, this view presents a compelling argument (provided you don't look too closely), for what need is there of a Creator in a universe that has no beginning?

But there is a counter to that argument. And, oddly enough, Aristotle provided that, too, for he did not imagine an infinite regress for the movement of the heavenly spheres. He insisted, rather, and also without evidence, that there had to have been something that set everything in the heavens into motion. This he called the unmoved Prime Mover, or the uncaused First Cause, with later Christian theologians (particularly those of the Scholastic era) ascribing that primeval force to God. And that is how things stood, for a while anyway. Western Civilization had two diametrically opposed, faith-based, origin stories to choose from. And to be honest, the atheist's position, being the least cumbersome of the two, was also, therefore, the most logical. But empirical science was yet to look in on the matter. And when it did it would have a lot to say.

The investigation started in earnest with the invention of the telescope at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. And the first thing these intrepid scientists discovered when they looked to the heavens is that the universe was a great deal larger than anyone had imagined. But more than that, as they continued to study it was becoming painfully apparent that everything in the observable universe was in the state of decay. And this did not bode well for the atheists, since their pet theory required some sort of mechanism to continually replenish the energy being lost in our universe due to entropy. And such devices are deemed impossible by the newly discovered laws of thermodynamics.

So that presented the atheistic view with its first major difficulty. And before it could be resolved, a Belgian, Jesuit astronomer, Fr. Georges Lamaitre, made things doubly worse by noting, from his studies of red shifting starlight, that everything in our universe (every star and nebula and galaxy) appeared to be expanding outward from a single point in space. And, thus, it had a beginning!

His revolutionary findings were published in the early 1930s. And even though the evidence in support of it was overwhelming, many in the scientific community understandably did not take kindly to it. They fought it vehemently for decades, calling it, derisively, the Big Bang Theory. But the scientific community eventually ceded to Lamaitre when in 1964 a major prediction of his theory, the Cosmic Background Radiation, was discovered. [1]

This by itself was a major blow to the atheistic worldview. But it was also becoming more and more obvious, from the study of Lamaitre's model, that the laws and constants in our one-time universe are ridiculously fine-tuned to allow for the presence of life. Change any of them only slightly and there is no possibility of any type of life existing or evolving. [2] And, if that was not enough, the modern realization that even with that advantage, given the enormous complexity of even the most rudimentary living organisms, the odds against life arising, simply by accident, are still astronomically high. [3]

So in very short order (a mere 400 years of scientific exploration) the case for a Creator had become overwhelming. Its Scripture affirming conjectures that our universe had a beginning presented scientists (with their heavy reliance on atheistic explanations) a major dilemma. Without eternity to work with, life's presence in our universe becomes very difficult to explain, forcing even the most skeptical to concede to the unwelcome possibility of a guiding hand.

And about the only thing allowing many scientists to sleep soundly at night was another new theory that came out to seemingly counteract the theistic implications of the Big Bang. It was the Big Crunch theory, which proposed that at some point our expanding universe will stop in its expansion due to its own gravity and collapse back in on itself. And the reason for its popularity is that it posits a seemingly infinite number of universes prior to ours, all originating from a quantum singularity and then falling back into a new quantum singularity.

In other words, it likens our universe to an accordion that just keeps on playing. But each time it opens up it plays a different tune. It is understandable, then, that atheists might like it. Even though it may not be eternal, with a very large number of universes to work with, one, as absurdly favorable to the advent of life as ours, is once again not only plausible, it is statistically probable that many might arise and we’re just the fortunate souls who happen to reside in one of them.

And since a Big Crunch cannot theoretically happen in a universe older than 14 billion years, [4] it is also understandable why science would prefer the younger age. But simply wanting something to be true, doesn’t make it so. And the theory was disproven anyway, with the recent discovery that the universe is not only not slowing down in its expansion (as was thought), it is accelerating! [5] But that has, apparently, not stopped scientists from hoping against hope that somehow the theory can be resurrected. [6]

As to Alan Sandage, he died in 2011 never faltering in his support for his own estimate and claiming that one day he’d be proven right. Being vindicated by the Bible was probably not what he had in mind. But given that he was one of the rare scientists out there that was also unashamedly Christian, it is good to see the 2/3rds Rule coming down in his favor.

A2: The dating of the origin of our solar system

The current majority scientific opinion places the origin of our solar system at somewhere around 4.6 billion years ago. Whereas the 2/3rds Rule predicts that the sun began to shine on our primordial earth some 5.26 billion years ago, making it the only event predicted by the 2/3rds Rule in natural history that is seriously at odds with popular science.

In defense of the Rule, it needs to be recognized that the scientific estimate is not based on any conclusive empirical evidence. It is based, rather, on the radiometric dating of certain mineral inclusions (grains) found in meteorites. And that data has been subsequently incorporated into a hypothetical mathematical model of our solar system that projects the earth, the sun and the planets all came together at roughly the same time.

But those inclusions really tell us only the minimum age of the solar system. And although there are many found in the 4.6-billion-year-old age range, some meteorites have been found by radiometric dating to be considerably older. Dust particles found in the Murchison meteorite, for instance, have been dated to be somewhere between 5 and 9 billion years old. [7] So it seems a little presumptive to conclude that the 4.6-billion-year-old grains were created at the same time as our solar system. Could they not have been produced by some other cosmic event that occurred 4.6 billion years ago? Science is currently of the opinion, for instance, that a mars-sized planet struck the earth around that time. And this, in turn, is what gave us our moon. [8] Seems like maybe that collision could have kicked up a bit of dust, as well, in our orbital path.

The data, by this theory, tells only the age of the moon, however. And it leaves open the questions we are most interested in, namely the age of the earth and the solar system. So it is understandable that competing theories on what these dust particles represent might not be popular. Modern science has been trying to figure out how old we are for as long as there have been modern scientists, with the first attempt of the modern era belonging to Isaac Newton, who calculated from the mathematical model that the earth was 50,000 years old. And each progressive guess has gotten older and older, such that by the end of the 19th century scientists were finally fairly confident that our planet was around 100 million years old. But then came the discovery of radiometric dating which changed everything,

So now we have science's latest opinion on the matter. And it has been in roughly the same ballpark since the 1950s, which may be why it is treated with so much reverence. But at its heart it is not really much different from the prior attempts. Like all the others it is an extrapolation based upon an assumption that may or may not be accurate. So as it stands today, all we really have here is a difference of opinion between two competing mathematical models. Time and further investigation will tell which is the superior model for predicting this date.

A3: The dating of the origin of the first living cells

This one is not really anomalous. It is a simple clarification. The position of this book is that the first living cells were created by God somewhere in our universe around 5.26 billion years ago. And, to date, there is no evidence provided by science that can dispute it. About all science can tell us, with any degree of certainty, is what might be the latest date life first appears. And the evidence for that is found entirely on earth. Accordingly, the earliest strong evidence for life on this planet dates to around 3.5 billion years ago. And some believe the date can be pushed back as far as 3.8 Ga. But that does not solve the question of when or where the first viable living cell was brought into existence.

Looking at it from another perspective, there is evidence that terrestrial life is deriving energy via photosynthesis as early as 3.4 Ga. But given how complicated that process is, it seems unreasonable that it would come about so quickly after an origin of life dated at 3.8 Ga. This would have been a big step in evolution, as big perhaps as the one that saw the advent of eukaryotic organisms. Pushing life's humble beginnings back some 2 billion years to say, 5.26 Ga and removing that event to an extraterrestrial location (like say, a comet, as some have proposed) resolves both difficulties. And science would have no argument with either speculation.

A4: The suggestion that macroscopic animal life originated 585 Mya

This one is not so much an anomaly as it is a call for an update of the current geological division naming convention. Fifty years ago, classrooms taught that all visible animal life originated in a kind of explosion (or proliferation) at the start of a geological subdivision called the Cambrian Period around 540 Ma. And all of Earth’s history prior, being devoid of macroscopic fossils (and, therefore, geologically boring), was lumped together under the heading Precambrian Era, and largely ignored.

Recognizing that 4 billion years is too long a time to just gloss over, modern geology has upgraded the Precambrian to supereon status, and subdivided it into three Eons, designated the Hadean, Archaean, and Proterozoic. In so doing our Eon, designated the Phanerozoic (which literally means visible life) became the fourth, and it encompasses everything occurring after the Cambrian explosion.

This was a definite improvement, but there still remains something of a misnomer in that, geologists have also recently discovered fossils of unusual, but visible, life forms dating into the Proterozoic Eon and as far back as 580 (and possibly 610) Ma. And this is very much in keeping with the date proposed by the 2/3rds Rule for the advent of multicellular animal life. But it also makes the designation Phanerozoic somewhat outdated unless its start is also pushed back to where those first visible life forms originated.

And if science ever does give the Phanerozoic a more appropriate starting date (like say 585 Ma) something very interesting emerges. It would result in all four of the geological subdivisions that define our time (the Phanerozoic Eon, the Cenozoic Era, the Quaternary Period, and the Holocene Epoch) starting at milestones predicted by the 2/3rds Rule. And when you add to that the onsets of both earth history (at 5.26 Ga) and cosmological history (at 15.8 Ga), it totals six subdivisions, altogether. Figure A1 shows this graphically. [9] And as a bonus it also shows how incredibly well the biological record conforms to the Rule, as nearly all of the taxonomic subdivisions biologists have invented to describe the progression of life from the first living cell to us are accounted for. [10]

A5: The conflict on the origin of fruit bearing trees

For those believers who accept that the Days of Creation are much longer than 24 hours in length, this is really the only major discrepancy found between the Bible’s account and the scientific record. And this discrepancy exists with any theory of Creation siding with mainstream scientific dating. The issue comes from the Bible’s assertion that fruit bearing trees were created on the 3rd Day, [11] while scientific evidence insists that it would have happened in the middle of the Cretaceous Period. And that would place it, by the 2/3rds Rule's ordering, on the 5th Day.

There is, of course, no problem here for the Young Earth Creationists. But they convolute so much of science to make it bend to their interpretation of Scripture (and the Old Earth interpretation resolves so many more biblical issues with science) it is hard to accept this as a possible solution. Alternatively, there is also no likelihood that science will ever budge on this issue, either.

Modern science does tell us that visible vegetative life first arose in the form of red algae in the middle of Day 3. In fact, this ancestor of all modern plants (which includes, of course, fruit trees) arrives right around two-thirds of the way into that Day. [12] So there is an indication that God is acknowledging this milestone in evolution, too. But it is a long way to go from there to the first fruit trees. From the perspective, then, that Scripture cannot be broken, perhaps this is a situation where we just do not yet have the correct authentic version of the Book of Genesis. Or perhaps we are misinterpreting the words given us in Scripture as fruit trees when, in fact, they are referring to something there were no words for when they were first written. Strands of red algae do bear a slight resemblance to fruit tree branches when viewed under a microscope.

But there are any number of ways of resolving this issue and they will not be listed here. Bible purists may not like any of the resolutions, but no one is impugning the Bible here. [13] This anomaly is simply being put into the category of one of those instances where we may not yet understand what the Bible is really saying and hoping that it will be resolved sometime in the future, through an archeological dig perhaps.

A6: The conflict between the Bible and science on the events of 4th Day

This conflict involving the Bible’s claim that the lights in the sky were created on the 4th Day of Creation is an old one. [14] But drawing on added insights provided by the 2/3rds Rule, a resolution was proposed in chapter 2 suggesting the author of Genesis was writing from the perspective of life, which would not have had the faculties (eyes, brains, etc.) to perceive the light of heavenly bodies until the 4th Day. And residing in the ocean during a global Ice Age, it would also not have been in the position to do so until that too had ended.

From a slightly different perspective, it is reminiscent of that old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The answer depends on your definition of the word “sound.” If you define it as a wave vibrating through an atom-rich medium, then yes, it makes a sound. But if you believe “sound” is something more, and that you cannot truly call that phenomenon “sound” until there is someone, or something, capable of perceiving it, then your answer is no.

And you can say the same of light. Scientifically defined, light is simply a radiation of photons. But until it is perceptible to the senses, many would argue you cannot call it light. It doesn’t get that promotion until you can see it. So when the Bible says God created the lights in the sky on the 4th Day, [15] it does not necessarily follow that He also made the sources of those lights on that Day (and indeed, science insists that He didn’t). A better interpretation of those Scriptures, then, might be in terms of God creating the senses on Day 4, that we could finally see the photons being radiated by those bodies, and perceive it as light.

A7: The dating of the K-T extinction [16]

Science can determine the date that the dinosaurs were wiped out by radiometrically dating the thin layer of Iridium that was laid down on the earth’s surface at the time of the impact event that caused it. And there is a lot of this Iridium around today to test. So by this method, modern science has pinpointed the date of the K-T extinction to such precision that the range of accuracy is less than 0.1%. That is, it’s estimated to have happened 65 Ma ± 50,000 years … or rather it was.

In 2013, a new method of dating the event was introduced. And it claims the impact actually occurred 1 million years earlier at 66.043 Ma ± 11,000 year. [17] But this is not a situation where a new method is introduced to increase the precision of an earlier estimate. The ranges of accuracy of the two divergent theories do not overlap, making them conflicting opinions. So just as it is with the estimate for the Big Bang, even though popular science seems to have adopted the latest estimate, the 2/3rds Rule sides with the earlier one and predicts that science will one day come back to it.

Section 1b: The 2/3rds Rule and Natural History (Creation Level II)

Within the framework of this book’s analysis, there really are no anomalies associated with the 2/3rds Rule’s treatment of Creation Level II. All the primary stages in man’s evolution, from the first primates to Adam and Eve, are covered, and in most cases, the dates the 2/3rds Rule provides are in remarkably good accord with the scientific estimates. There are admittedly some cases where the dating is slightly off. But primatology is a science that is in no way settled. And it is in those areas of the study containing the most uncertainty where these discrepancies lie. So there is nothing really to report on the dating of an anomalous nature.

The only real anomalies to be found under this heading do not pertain to the dates and are, therefore, reserved for the next installment of this Series, where this Level will be reviewed in finer detail. And it is admitted that therein some controversies will be unearthed. But even after those are accounted for, it will still be evident that the only halfway significant issues between the 2/3rds Rule and natural history are the few that have already been discussed from Creation Level I, where scientific dating is not nearly as accurate as it is in Level II.

Section 2: The 2/3rds Rule and Salvation History (Levels III & IVa)

Since the review of these Levels has also been reserved for the second installment in this Series, any anomalies found in this time period will be discussed there, as well. Some readers must be, however, keenly aware that the timespans of the biblical Patriarchs given in Genesis are seemingly irreconcilable with the conjectures of modern science. In the Bible, for instance, the length of time from Adam to Abraham, appears to be somewhere between 2,000 and 3,500 years (depending on the version of Genesis consulted), [18] while the 2/3rds Rule and science both insist it’s about 87,000 years. It is appropriate, therefore, to at least comment on this one discrepancy before moving on.

Suffice it to say, therefore, that this issue will definitely be addressed in the next installment. And although it may seem, on the surface, to be an impossible puzzle to crack, the 2/3rds Rule provides a rather elegant resolution that does no serious damage to science or Scripture. The trick lies in knowing the exact dates for Adam and Abraham (which is something we never had before), because once those dates are known, all the tumblers on the lock that was obscuring our vision fall into place to reveal an inspired new way of viewing things.

Section 3: The 2/3rds Rule and NT Times (Levels IVb, V, VI & VII)

A8: The 2/3rds Rule's connections to Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor

Of the 42 commemorations of the Hebrew calendar that have been found to be tied to significant events from messianic times, 40 are hard to dispute. They come to us either directly from Scripture or are solidly corroborated by a combination of logic and math. Appendix C provides the details. The 2 exceptions are the Special Sabbaths, Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor, whose connections could easily be relegated to coincidence.

St. Paul's conversion, for instance, was intentionally set to Shabbat Shekalim and has only one mathematical corroboration. That happens when you also intentionally set St. Paul's death to Shmini Atzeret in 64 AD, and notice that two-thirds of the way between the two dates is Shabbat Hazon in 54 AD. So even though that observance is very appropriately attached to St, Paul at that time in his life, the odds against it being an accident are still not very high. There is just too much manipulation involved to call it a solid connection.

But Shabbat Zakhor's connection to this study is even weaker. Its only link requires acceptance of the Oral Tradition that Mary and Joseph stood trial before the Sanhedrin just prior to Christ's birth. And even though that tradition is somewhat substantiated in Ta'anit Esther being mathematically tied to the Nativity, Shabbat Zakhor's relationship to it all is still only implied. So, as with Shabbat Shekalim, Shabbat Zakhor seems to be left hanging, looking for something a little more substantial to nail it down.

And there may well be some additional connections out there just waiting to be found. No one is saying that this study is exhaustive. To that end, we'll be looking at two other possibilities, momentarily. But first it is helpful to look back at the bigger picture, to see it as God has apparently given it to us. And from that view it can be seen as a mosaic where all the tiles have been scattered throughout the Bible. In other words, we've been given a massive puzzle in the Bible (which many, throughout history, have instinctively recognized). And to get us more involved in His handiwork, the Holy Spirit has made it our job to put the tiles back into their proper places.

So that is how this book proceeded, with the first tiles, those pertaining to Jesus and John the Baptist, being rather easy to find once the 2/3rds Rule had been discovered. But that brought the big picture to maybe only 60% completion, with many tiles still in need of being inserted.

So Mary's tiles came next. And they, too, were easily found. They came into view by making use of the precedents set by Jesus and John. And that brought the picture into even sharper clarity. But at about 85% completion now there were still a few observances left and one individual noticeably missing. It was Jesus's stepfather, St. Joseph. So even though we knew nothing initially of his life, we did have a rather gaping hole in the Mosaic looking to be filled. So we filled it. And sure enough, in so doing there were plenty of mathematical corroborations popping up to tell us we'd gotten it right. [19]

But the Mosaic was still incomplete. We now found ourselves in the annoying situation jigsaw puzzle solvers often complain about where they've used every piece given them in the box but there is one piece still missing. And that is because Shabbat Shekalim had not yet found its home. Fortunately, however, there were also two other important New Testament figures, whose lives after they began their ministries seemed suitable for inclusion. So the ministerial lives of Sts. Peter and Paul were brought into the discussion.

And with regard to St. Peter, 2 of the 3 dates already found for him (the day he was given Primacy, and the day of his martyrdom) both appeared to be fairly solid. The former was confirmed by the 2/3rds Rule and the latter by archeology. And they both lend credence to the event calculated for him two-thirds of the way in between. Falling, as it does, on the 21st anniversary of Jesus being called to martyrdom in Jerusalem, it is not too much of a stretch to speculate that this is the day he, too, was called to live out his glorious destiny. Only, in St. Peter's case, the city that he would be forever connected to is Rome. And all in all, it becomes rather easy to argue in favor of St. Peter's inclusion in the Mosaic.

For St. Paul not so much. The 3 dates found for him are undeniably speculative. Nevertheless, the Church places his life on a pedestal nearly as high as St. Peter's. So how can it not have also found a place in the Mosaic? Plus we have an observance, Shabbat Shekalim, seemingly ready made to attach to the day the scales fell from his eyes, bringing his soul, in the process, back to life. In other words, when you look at it as a Mosaic, Shabbat Shekalim's placement into as a milestone in the life of St. Paul seems thoroughly justified.

But for those who may disagree there is a story from the Gospel of Matthew that also seems tailormade for Shabbat Shekalim. That Sabbath being a call to pay the Temple tax, the story tells of Jesus being asked for the tax and of His compliance by producing the coins from the mouth of a random fish. [20] So although there is no indication from Scripture of the exact date this happened, Shabbat Shekalim does appear to be referenced here. And given that it appears in Matthew's Gospel after the Transfiguration, [21] and after the Apostles have received from Christ the power to expel demons, [22] it would seemingly assign the Miracle of the Temple tax to the last Shabbat Shekalim in Christ's ministry, making it February 14, 33 AD.

With no secondary corroboration from math or sacred tradition, the odds of this miracle actually happening on Shabbat Shekalim is the same as it was with St. Paul's conversion. But with two candidates now to choose from, the likelihood of one of them being correct is considerably higher.

Moving on then to Shabbat Zakhor, this one also has a potential connection to Christ's ministerial years. And, if valid, it will actually provide us with dates for 3 monumental events in His ministry, all of which are covered in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel. It begins with John's account of a miracle, where Jesus famously fed a crowd of 5,000 on 2 fish and 5 barley loaves. [23] But John continues, telling us that after that miracle, and sometime during the subsequent night, Jesus performed another. He was seen walking toward the Apostles on water as they were crossing the Sea of Galilee by boat. [24] And then, on the following day in Capernaum, Jesus, we're told, gave His famous discourse on the Bread of Life. [25] But it isn't until we get to the very end of the discourse that Jesus hints perhaps at the day on which it occurred.

In that discourse, itself, Jesus told His followers, in no uncertain terms, that they were going to have to, literally, eat of His Flesh and drink of His Blood if they wanted any part in God's Kingdom. It was the key to life itself. And many walked away that day as a result. It was just too hard a saying to accept. But Jesus didn't call them back, as you'd expect, if He didn't really mean it literally. Instead, He turned to His 12 Apostles and asked if they now wanted to walk away as well. To this Simon Peter, speaking on behalf of the twelve, said, "Master, to whom shall we go? You [alone] have the words of eternal life." [26] And Jesus then praises them for their blind faith but tops it off with a riddle. He adds, "Yet one of you is a devil." [27]

So, in an effort to solve it, many theologians have speculated that this is what turned Judas's heart away from Christ, that Judas was among those who could not handle what Jesus was saying. And when looking solely at what has been written in this chapter, it does seem to make sense. But it is also in conflict with what John later specifically tells us in his Gospel as to Judas's true motivation. He attributes his ultimate failing to greed, that Judas was a thief who was stealing from the common purse. [28] It seems a bit odd then, that John's intent in including this statement by Jesus would be to contradict himself.

An alternative position, and one that is much more compatible with Scripture, is that the Holy Spirit inspired John to record this bit of information to tell us the date that it happened. Shabbat Zakhor, after all, is a sabbath created to comply with a command from God found in the book of Deuteronomy. [29] Therein God told the Israelites to always be on guard for the treachery of the Amalekites. And the placement of this Sabbath just prior to Purim comes from the tradition that Haman, the archvillain in the story of Purim, is believed to have been an Amalekite.

Haman, however, has a New Testament counterpart. Mark's Gospel notes that Judas betrayed Jesus and made his deal with the Sanhedrin on 13 Nisan, which was the same day Haman hatched his plot with the King of Persia to kill all the Jews in the empire. [30] It is seemingly no coincidence, then, that both equally fiendish plots would fail or that Haman and Judas would both die soon after in a similar fashion. [31]

It makes sense, too, that Jesus might feel the need to honor God's command by giving the Apostles a heads up about Judas. And this being the first time in His ministry that He makes mention of it, Shabbat Zakhor is ideally suited for that purpose. As to the exact year, John's Gospel places it near the start of 32 AD. But the events associated with it are suggestive of a later date. The multiplication of the loaves, for instance, was an extremely public miracle and would have been uncharacteristic of Jesus in 32 AD. The Gospels tell us, rather, that He was always trying to maintain a low profile in the early years of His ministry. With Judas being selected an Apostle a mere 5 months earlier, it would also be strange if Jesus was already calling him a devil.

So the events seem to point instead to 33 AD. But so does the math. Shabbat Zakhor would have landed on February 28 in that year, making it also exactly two-thirds of the way into the 4th milli-Second of Creation Level V. [32] Shabbat Shekalim (on February 14) is also exactly half way between that Sabbath and Shabbat Shirah (on January 31) which saw the Apostles being sent out on their first missions. So both of these Special Sabbaths can be said to have mathematical corroborations in 33 AD. And it is also worth noting that by bringing these two into this final monumental year in Christ's ministry, all 6 of the Special Sabbaths leading to Passover are present and accounted for. [33]

This is all still speculative, of course. And we have no assurance if the true connections to Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor have even yet been found. At this point all that can be known with certainty is that the Mosaic is real and our confidence level can be high in all but two of the observances that define it. Perhaps someday the same can be said of these last two pieces to the puzzle. But we can, at least, say that reasonable candidates have been found to plug the holes until that happens.

A9: St. Joseph’s birth occurring on the second day of Rosh HaShanah rather than the first

In chapter 6, St. Joseph’s birth year was determined by assigning it to the only year in the 1st century BC that would have made him the patriarch of the Holy Family at a reasonable age while at the same time linking his birth to Rosh HaShanah and his circumcision to Shabbat Shuvah. By this method it was further calculated that he would have been 53 at the time of Jesus’s birth and 80 years exactly when he died. And there are many ways by which these numbers can be verified. The most powerful was the calculation of his wedding date, which was presumed to have been exactly two-thirds of the way into his life. That it should also be exactly two-thirds of the way into Mary's pregnancy is nothing short of miraculous.

So there is no room to doubt St. Joseph's vital statistics. But there is still one minor issue and it concerns the date of his birth. If going by the rules set down (and detailed in chapter 3) for determining the first day of every month, St. Joseph would have been born on the second day of Rosh HaShanah. And that seems out of step with all the other events that have been dated in this study. In fact, even though, the ancients did not see the second day of Rosh HaShanah as being a second day, referring to the two combined as simply Yoma Arichta (one long day) it still seems odd that God would connect St. Joseph to a day in a multiday holiday that wasn't the first. It is especially troubling of a festival that the Bible ascribes to only one day. [34]

To solve this riddle, then, it seems prudent to understand how Rosh HaShanah became a two-day celebration in the first place. And it is found to be a natural result of God assigning it to the first day of the month. This would not have posed a problem when the holiday was originally established under Moses. For the Israelites of that time, residing, as they were, together in the wilderness, it was easy to keep. But after they entered the Promised Land and started to spread out a problem began to develop. And it became pronounced after the Diaspora with so many living in foreign lands. With each new month being determined in Jerusalem by the observation of the new moon, the Jewish people living elsewhere had no certainty when any new month would be declared. The reason being, the idiosyncrasies of the lunar orbit, which dictate a nearly equal chance for any given month being 29 or 30 days long.

With most months, however, this situation can be rectified by messengers before a major holiday transpired. But that would not work for Rosh HaShanah, a major holiday to be celebrated by everyone, everywhere on the first day of Tishri. A solution was needed to ensure that all the Jewish communities knew when it would occur. And it needed to be foolproof, a solution that satisfied all the religious requirements, as well. So that is what they devised. The preceding month (Elul) was set to 29 days every year, regardless of when the new moon would appear. And the holiday of Rosh HaShanah was extended to 2 days. In this way, even if the new moon wasn't sighted on the 1st day of the holiday, they knew that it would be on the 2nd day and the command by God to celebrate with the new moon would be fulfilled. [35]

In recognition, then, that before Jesus conveyed the power to bind and loose to the Seat of Peter [36] it was a faculty held by Moses (and his successors), [37] this liturgical alteration to the holiday of Rosh HaShanah has to be considered inspired. That is, the Jewish high priests were given, through Moses, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth. [38] And in this case (and many others), they used it. This still doesn't resolve the issue of St. Joseph's birth seemingly occurring on a day other than the first of a multiday holiday. But it does get us closer. And the final resolution involves several other dates in the month of Tishri so it will be tackled under the next heading.

A10: The one-day irregularities with many of the dates calculated in the month of Tishri

Of the 39 critical months determined in this book that are associated with important events in the Christian era, five start one-day later than expected if going strictly by the astronomical record. All four of these months are preceded by 29-day months, so it might be tempting to attribute these 1-day lapses to inclement weather conditions on the day the New Moon was first visible. That would have prevented the Temple witnesses seeing it and put off the announcement of the start of the new month by one day. And that does work well as a possible explanation for one of the four months. But the other four instances involve the month of Tishri. And, as was discussed under the previous heading, in the Second Temple period the month of Elul (which precedes Tishri) was standardized to always be 29 days (regardless of the weather).

Another explanation is obviously required. And happily, the Bible sets a precedent that may provide it. As was discussed in chapter 1, the Gospels give evidence of two separate methods of keeping time in its description of events in the month of Nisan in 33 AD. The synoptic Gospels assign the Crucifixion to the first day of Passover, whereas John's Gospel reports that the Temple priests were still in preparation for the Passover on the day Jesus died. [39], [40]

This strongly suggests that the means Jesus and His Apostles had of determining the new moon and the first day of the month was much closer to reality than that employed by the Temple. [41] And it concurs with what a lot of modern day scholars are saying, too, of the inaccuracies in the Temple's method of determining new months. [42] It is also the opinion of this study which to keep things straight will assign names to the 2 systems. They will be called the Common Calendar (which Jesus and His Apostles apparently used), and the Temple Calendar (which the Temple priests apparently used). [43]

So that gives us part of the solution. And the rest of it comes from the recognition that whenever the month of Elul is 30 days long (as determined by the Common Calendar) there are no issues with the following month (Tishri), everything lines up. Whereas the problems seen in the month of Tishri occur only when the Common Calendar calculates the preceding month (Elul) to be 29 days long. That is where all 4 of the 1-day discrepancies in the month of Tishri occur. And that would include the month of Tishri in 9 BC (when John the Baptist was born), the month of Tishri in 28 AD (when John began his ministry). And the month of Tishri in 30 AD (when Jesus was baptized). But it could also account for St. Joseph being born in 62 BC on the second day of Rosh HaShanah when it should have been on the first.

So what is going on? Did the Temple priests actually set the month of Elul to 30 days rather than 29? That would not make a lot of sense. But the answer is, nevertheless, yes, they did! Only not from their perspective. What appears to have happened is that, with the Temple Calendar being 1-day off from the Common Calendar, their standardized 29-day Elul would have translated to making Elul a 30-day month no matter what for those who followed the Common Calendar. And with the Temple priests having the power to bind and loose, those who followed the Common Calendar would have had no choice but to accept that standard. And that is apparently what they did.

The issue is, thereby, rather handily resolved for the 4 dates in Tishri that were in question. And it is nice to see the Bible providing the key to resolving it by the discrepancy it built into the Gospels on the date of the Crucifixion. We are left with but one month where the holiday and the event are 1-day out of sync. It is the month that gave us the Immaculate Conception. And that will be addressed next.

A11: An issue with the month of Kislev in 25 BC

With the requirement that Mary's Immaculate Conception occur on a sabbath to align it with Shabbat Chanukah in 25 BC, set it to December 6 that year. To get it to also align with I Chanukah, however, required the month of Kislev to start 1-day later than it normally would by the Common Calendar. But with the preceding month, Cheshvan, being 29 days long in 25 AD, this is an easy fix. It implies that on this one occasion, out of all the dates uncovered, the day for determining the first day of Kislev was overcast that year, causing those who followed the Common Calendar to start it one day later than normal. It is not understood why the determination of this one date should be affected by the weather. But it is well within the bounds of the system God provided. So it does not represent a flaw in the theory. It was God after all who created the system. It should not, therefore, by unusual that He might make use of it.

A12: A clarification on the Holy Family's prenatal 40-day fast

In chapter 6, where Ta'anit Esther in 8 BC was found to be precisely 40 days prior to the Nativity, it was posited that the Holy Family very likely observed that span as a prenatal fast. But there are some issues with this claim requiring clarification. And the first to address might be that there is no written evidence of Ta'anit Esther being observed in New Testament times. In fact, the earliest known reference to the fast is from the 8th century. [44] But with there also being links found to modern observances from Hebrew calendar in this study, the timing of the establishment of an observance does not seem to pose any difficulty to the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Family had no need anyway of calendars to tell them what to do. They had angels as their guides.

So there really is no issue with when the fast was first observed. The date proposed, however, is another matter as 40 days prior to April 5 (the date of the Nativity) in 8 BC would have been February 24. And NASA's lunar phase catalogue sets that date to 14 Adar, which is one-day after the date Ta'anit Esther is normally observed on. So how can this be reconciled? This study proposes 3 ways.

For one, the preceding month (Shevat) was 29 days long in 8 BC. So this could simply be another case (like that of the Immaculate Conception) where inclement weather resulted in the Rosh Chodesh for the month of Adar being pushed back a day. Or it could be just a discrepancy in the way people counted back then.

So that's 2 plausible solutions. But the one favored by this book takes note that of the fact that the Festival of Purim is not universally celebrated on the 14th of Adar. In walled cities it is to be celebrated one day later (on the 15th). And the Protevangelion of James, which told us of the trial the Holy Family was subjected to, also tells us the trial was before the Temple priests. [45] That puts it in Jerusalem (a walled city). So with Purim occurring on 15 Adar, and Ta'anit Esther being observed on the day prior (on 14 Adar), that sets it to the crucial Julian calendar date (February 24) in 8 BC, with no need for anything fancy to explain the data.

A13: The timing of the start of John the Baptist’s ministry

One very interesting side benefit of being able to date many of the events in New Testament times through their mathematical relationship with each other is that it also gives us the times of day they occurred. And a table showing all of the times of day is provided below in Figure A2.

But it needs to be understood from the onset that all the times listed in this table are both speculative and approximate. They are speculative because they are derived largely from a book (the Bible) whose contents are often subject to, and thus, at the mercy of, interpretation. And all that is needed to recognize this is to look at the centuries-long controversy over the true duration of the 6 "Days" of Creation. So there is that aspect to consider.

But even where there is consensus as to the proper interpretation there is also the matter of accuracy, because in order to derive exact times from what the Bible has given us, you need to also know at least two of those times with pinpoint accuracy. But the Scriptures don't provide anything to that degree of certitude.

It is from the synoptic Gospels, for instance, where we get the tradition that Jesus died at 3 PM. [46] But they don't really say it was precisely 3:00 PM. And even if they did, how much confidence can we have in their time measuring methods back then? Could it have been, say, 3:10 PM? 2:40 PM? There doesn't seem to be any way of knowing. Fortunately, however, in doing the math a difference of 1-hour as to the time of Jesus's death does not really change the times of the other dates calculated in any significant way. So lacking any better information it's been set at exactly 3:00 PM.

The other date that was used to set the timing for all the other dates is that of the Annunciation. And for this event, Scripture actually does suggest an exact time. It is midnight. But the uncertainty in this case comes from its source text, because it's not found in the Gospels. The tradition for this timing seems to originate from a passage in the Old Testament Book of Wisdom. It reads ...

For while all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her course,

thy almighty word leaped down from heaven from thy royal throne,

as a fierce conqueror into the midst of the land of destruction. [47]

Read in full context, these verses are clearly talking about the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt during the night of the Passover. But the Book of Wisdom is a prophetic work. And it contains many passages that describe messianic times to a tee. And that explains why many of the early Church Fathers also saw in this a prophetic foretelling of the Incarnation. But regardless of whether they were correct in that belief, this being the only time the ancient traditions have given us for the Annunciation, this, and the timing of Jesus's death, are the two times that were used to generate all of the other times listed in the table. [48]

Much like it was with the timing of the Crucifixion, however, changing the time of day of the Annunciation does not significantly affect the other times, either. If you are of the opinion that it happened in mid-morning, for instance, that would only change the time of day of St. Joseph's speculative deathbed blessing from 2 PM to about 5 PM. And the time predicted for the start of John, the Baptist's ministry would only be altered by 1-hour. After that the changes are in mere minutes and by the time you get to Creation Level VI (Holy Week) there are only seconds of difference.

So although the times of day shown are approximate, they still leave no real leeway for human manipulation without dramatically running afoul from the tradition that gave us the timing of Jesus's death. That one specific time is the key to setting the times (approximate as they are) for all the other dates predicted by the 2/3rds Rule during Jesus's life.

In recognition of this fact, the results seen have to be acknowledged as being somewhat amazing because, for the most part, the timing appears to be spot on with what might be expected from the way these events are reported in Scripture. They also remarkably occur during the normal waking hours for people living in that era. And had this not been the case, it could be viewed as a serious flaw.

But as appropriate as most of these times may appear to the events they relate to, there are two noticeable exceptions. And the first to be addressed is the time of day predicted for the start of John the Baptist’s ministry. It is 10:40 PM and roughly four hours into the first day of Sukkot in 28 AD. And although the day fits well, the timing may seem a bit odd if our expectation for the timing of the start of John's ministry is when he performed his first baptism. Scripture, however, seems to have a different view on when it started.

We are told in John's Gospel, that John the Baptist began his ministry at the behest of someone (an angel perhaps) who foretold that he would one day baptize the Christ. [49] Luke's Gospel also has his ministry starting from a call. [50] So this would appear to be the impetus that should mark the start of his ministry, a call from a heavenly messenger, akin to the way his birth was announced, [51] or that of his cousin. [52] And just as it was on those other 2 occasions, it is a heavenly announcement that marks the onset of the event. So there is nothing odd about John receiving his call to begin his ministry at 10:40 PM. But as was mentioned there is another time of day shown in Figure A2 that seems very off. And this one is not so easily resolved.

A14: The timing of the start of Jesus’s ministry.

The start of Jesus’s ministry was calculated in chapter 4 to have occurred on September 27, 30 AD, which (according to the lunar cycle) would have corresponded to the holiday of Yom Kippur that year. [53] And, as was discussed, Jesus's baptism is very appropriately assigned to this holiday. But there are two rather distressing issues with the timing. For one, the 2/3rds Rule places it around 9:55 PM that night, whereas all four Gospels seem to be pretty adamant that His baptism took place during the daylight hours. And that timing is bad enough. Much more distressing is the fact that new days begin at dusk. So the timing is also not even a precise match with the holiday of Yom Kippur. It is actually about four hours into the following day!

It’s close enough to Yom Kippur, however, to infer that He was baptized on that holiday (and, in keeping with the Gospels, during the day). But His baptism is the event that is traditionally associated with the onset of His ministry. So there is a real mystery as to the timing, which is why this discussion has been reserved for this Appendix.

But maybe what we’re being told this time is something we already intuitively knew, that in Jesus’s baptism there was much more going on than the simple half hour ritual we experience. We know, for instance, that being sinless, He had no personal need of being baptized, that He submitted to it for our benefit, not His. [54] And, in chapter 4 it was further discerned, that His baptism was necessary that He could fulfill His role as our Yom Kippur scapegoat, by taking our sins from the waters of Baptism onto His shoulders and returning them to Satan (their author and rightful owner). [55]

And that may be the key to unlocking this mystery, because in the Yom Kippur ritual, as defined by Scripture, there are two goats that need to be sacrificed. One was for the Lord and the other was for Azazel (Satan). [56] And atonement was not achieved until each was sacrificed. Now Jesus, of course, took on the role of the Lord's goat at the very end of His mission, at Calvary. But here at the start, where we are being told that He has taken on the role of the scapegoat, He still has a job to do after being baptized. He has to take our sins into the desert and hand them off to Satan.

And we can also be certain there’s a lot more going on in this sin transfer on a supernatural level than we’ve been told. These are mysteries beyond human comprehension and likely will remain that way until after we meet our maker. But we do know, from the synoptic Gospels, that Jesus did go immediately into the desert to meet with Satan after being baptized. And John's Gospel is favorable to that happening, too (but only for one day). [57]

This study takes John's view. But either way it is important to note that the timing may not be as off as was originally thought. It seems rather to just be the 2/3rds Rule’s way of giving us the details on Jesus’s baptism that Scripture had merely implied, while, at the same time, telling us why it had to happen. But, as is often the case with the 2/3rds Rule, in doing this we see it also doing double duty in resolving another issue regarding Christ’s ministry, an issue that’s been confusing theologians for centuries.

So for all who’ve ever wondered why Jesus (our perfect role model) would put Himself into a situation where He was subjected to temptation, when we are specifically told by God not to do that, [58] herein lies the answer. It wasn’t something He wanted to do. In recognizing that His ministry actually started the day after He was baptized, we can now see it was just an unwanted consequence of His giving us the Sacrament of Baptism. It required that He meet with Satan. And whenever you do that, regardless of the reason, something bad is also going to happen.

Now in Christ’s case there really was no temptation, since God cannot be tempted. [59] So Satan’s bad actions here were inconsequential. But we mere humans are highly susceptible, and God also desires that all be saved. [60] It should, therefore, never be thought (as some have wrongly interpreted these Scriptures), that God would encourage our exposing our souls to spiritual peril or, worse yet, that He would ever intentionally lead us into temptation (another misinterpretation). The devil does that, not God, and the Church has always taught this. [61] And this resolution provides further support, as the moral lesson of the story is now best described in terms of what theologians like to call the double effect principle.

For those unfamiliar, simply stated, there are often two effects resulting from our actions, one good and one bad. But even though something bad may come of it, the action is still considered licit so long as A) the action itself is not sinful; B) the bad effect is an unwanted, but unavoidable, consequence of the action; and C) the intended good outweighs the unintended bad. And since, by this resolution, Christ’s actions can now be said to comply with all three criteria, His status as our perfect role model remains unsullied.

A15: The missing holiday connections

There are 3 major events dated by the 2/3rds Rule that do not appear, at first glance, to have Jewish holidays associated with them. Two were cited as examples of anomalies at the start of this Appendix. And it was also mentioned that there were good explanations given in the book already for each of the apparent lapses. Their being anomalies, however, it is appropriate to provide those explanations here, as well. Below, then (for those who may have forgotten how the Nativity, Christ's Holy Wednesday anointing and St. Joseph's yahrzeit are reconciled with the Hebrew calendar), is a rehash of those reconciliations. And as will be shown, with some bonus material added, the rumor that they are not associated with any holidays is grossly exaggerated.

A15.1: The Nativity

In chapter 7 it was noted that the lack of a Jewish holiday on 24 Nisan (the day of Christ's birth) was suggestive of the need for a new observance. It would be one that called our attention to the hundreds of millions infant souls that have been slaughtered in the world at the hands of abortionists for the crime of being innocent (and thus too much like Christ). And that does seem to be the message we are getting by the glaring hole seen in the Hebrew calendar during Christmas. But the Old Testament event that best parallels the Nativity, the crossing of the last Israelite through the parted Red Sea into the wilderness, actually is commemorated in Jewish tradition. It is celebrated on the day known as Kriyas Yam Suf.

So the issue with the Nativity is not one of a missing holiday. The problem lies in the fact that Kriyas Yam Suf (which translates: the Splitting of the Sea) is celebrated on 21 Nisan (the last day of Passover) and only for one day. It arose from the tradition that God made the Passover festival 7 days to commemorate the exodus from Egypt, with the parting of the Red Sea occurring on the last day. And this tradition further held (in seeming conflict with Scripture) that the parting and the crossing (from start to finish) all took place on the same day. [62]

The 2/3rds Rule is giving us, however, a much better picture of what went on (one that is more amenable with both Scripture and logic). It agrees that the 7 days of Passover commemorate the time it took for the Israelites to arrive at the Red Sea shore. But it sets the actual parting to 3 PM on 22 Nisan (the day after they arrived). And, in accord with Scripture, it has the last Israelite crossing over and Moses closing the sea back up at 7 AM on 24 Nisan. [63] This is not at all unreasonable given how many people had to cross (over one million) [64] and how rough the terrain was at one of today's most popular candidates for a crossing over point. [65]

The bottom line is this. The Holy Spirit seems to be informing us, in no uncertain terms, that Christ's birth needs to be commemorated as a solemn occasion. And it needs to stay that way as long as children in huge numbers are being deprived of seeing their first birthdays due to our compliance with Satan's insatiable desire to kill Christ in the womb. But given that it deserves an actual Jewish holiday connection to put it on a par with all the other dates, we have that, too. I(t is a simple matter of moving the start of Kriyas Yam Suf to where it belongs (on the day after the Passover festival) and extending it to its rightful length (40 hours).

A15.2: The Holy Wednesday Anointing

There are two noteworthy events that took place on Holy Wednesday (April 1) in 33 AD, one good and one bad. The bad saw Judas Iscariot making his deal with the Sanhedrin to betray Christ. And that sadness has plenty to commemorate it. Judas made his bet against God, after all, on April Fool's Day. But, back then, April 1 was a holiday the pagans called Veneralia, established to honor their goddesses, Venus Verticordia (the changer of hearts) and her consort, Fortuna Virilis (the fortunes of men). So the Julian calendar, by itself, has a lot to say.

As to the Hebrew calendar, it is not silent either. It tells of an Old Testament foreshadowing that also took place on 13 Nisan. It is the day that Haman (Mordecai's archnemesis in the Book of Esther) hatched his plot with the Persian emperor to kill all the Jews in his realm. [66] It does not, however, associate it with any holiday. And that is consistent with what has been seen with the 2/3rds Rule, throughout. The Holy Spirit apparently does not feel it right to so-honor any act of treachery. But the other half of Holy Wednesday, the good half, is another matter.

Apart from Judas's foolishness, Holy Wednesday is also the day Jesus appears to have sanctified the Sacrament of the Last Rites, that those who partake of it can have the Reproach of Egypt removed from their souls in preparation for their journey into the Promised Land. That is how the Bible describes it, anyway, in the Second Circumcision (the Old Testament event on 13 Nisan that foreshadows it). [67] And Jesus prophesied at the time that this day would be forever remembered for what took place. [68] So you would think, at a minimum, there would be a Jewish holiday to commemorate it. And there is one, of sorts, but maybe not what might have been expected.

It goes by the name Yud Gimmel Nisan, which is just a quaint way of saying 13 Nisan, in Hebrew. And it commemorates the day the Midrash has declared that God made His Covenant with Abraham giving him the Rite of Circumcision [69] But this tradition coming solely from an extrabiblical source, there is no certainty whether this truly is the day it happened. Nevertheless, you might think that an occasion as important to the Jewish mindset as God's Covenant with Abraham would be a day of celebration. But oddly it is not, which prompted the author to question why. And to that a rabbi explained, "Oh no, he said, "it certainly is celebrated, [just not on the 13th of Nisan]. It is celebrated every time a child is circumcised into the Hebrew faith in a ceremony know as a Brit Milah [or, more commonly, a Bris]."

So that would appear to be the solution for this particular puzzle. The holiday is in place, but its celebration is floating and personalized, occurring on different days for every Jewish family.

A15.3: St. Joseph's Yahrzeit

St. Joseph died, according to this study, on September 4, 19 AD (his 80th birthday). And, it may be recalled from chapter 6, that it happened on a very appropriate day on the US calendar. Being the first Monday in September that year it landed on US Labor Day (the brainchild of a 19th century Irish Catholic carpenter, established to honor those who work tirelessly for the support their families). And that alone seems sufficient homage. But those wanting to see something from the Hebrew calendar on the subject are not to be disappointed, either.

His death on September 4 in 19 AD would have been on either 16 Elul (if it happened sometime between midnight and dusk) or 17 Elul (if it happened in the hours between dusk and midnight). And while neither is a holiday, the 17th does seem today to be on a fast track to becoming one. It is popularly now known as the Day of the Dove, because, according to the Book of Genesis, Noah released a dove on this day to see if the flood waters had receded to the point where it was safe to leave the Ark. [70] And the reason for this day's increasing popularity is likely due to all the positive things in our world doves represent. They are seen as a symbol of peace, the Holy Spirit, the soul and as pertains to this day, the Jewish people. [71]

With regard to St. Joseph, it seems to be a most fitting tribute. It suggests his soul was released on this day to find its new home in the heavens. But there is a little more to it than that. The Book of Genesis speaks of the release of 3 doves. [72] The first was released on 17 Elul but it flew back, not finding any place to land. The second was released 7 days later, on 24 Elul, but it returned with an olive branch in its beak to show Noah that the land had become habitable. But Noah waited 7 more days, just to be sure, and released the third dove (presumedly on 1 Tishri). This dove, however, did not come back.

The remarkable aspect of all this, however, with regard to St. Joseph is that this third dove was apparently sent out on Rosh HaShanah. And that is the day established by the 2/3rds Rule as St. Joseph's Hebrew calendar birthday. So with several Catholic saints insisting that, like his wife, St. Joseph was also assumed bodily into heaven, [73] this would appear to be giving that belief some additional credence.

A16: The displaced holiday connections

With the exception of the modern ones, every Hebrew calendar observance connected a New Testament event in this book is taken from Scripture. And where Scripture provides the date for the observance, that date is employed by this book, too. There are also many holiday dates coming solely from tradition that are accepted verbatim, as well. But there are five occasions where the traditional date of an observance is rejected in this study in favor of a date that, in each case, seems more plausible. With there being uncertainty at the time of Christ as to the true date of these observances in all five situations it does not seem unreasonable to assert that the traditional date the ancients eventually settled on may be in error. And, as if God had anticipated there might be some flack about it, in all five cases He provided multiple means for justifying the reassignments. But this is more readily seen on an individual basis. Below, therefore, are the five.

A16.1: Tzom B'Tammuz

The Annunciation's position on 15 Tammuz is not an example so much of a holiday displacement as it is a reconnection to a lost holiday. And that is the one Moses's brother, Aaron, created for the Israelites, who wanted it to give thanks to God, for all He'd done in rescuing them from Egypt. So the holiday had a righteous beginning. But it immediately became profaned because the Israelites (having been corrupted by their time among the pagan Egyptians) directed their worship to a golden calf they'd fashioned to represent God.

And although Scripture does not tell us outright when this holiday took place, it is still rather easy to date from the clues it provides. [74] If the biblical account is accurate, we can have a high degree of confidence it happened on the 15th of Tammuz. And it makes sense, too, that the Annunciation would be associated with it. The holiday was created, initially, just to give thanks to God, our deliverer. So what better day would Jesus, the world's deliverer, be brought into our world? And in this way, He erases the shame that was attached to the holiday and gave us the true image for us to direct our worship.

So it is not really Tzom B'Tammuz that is being connected to here. But it is, in one sense, in that this holiday of Aaron's seems to be the progenitor for all the later calamities that have occurred on the month of Tammuz. It is the month the walls of Jerusalem have been breached in 2 separate sieges. And it is the month the King of Judah, Zedekiah, was captured by the Babylonians (thus ending the reign of the Davidic kings) with the death of sons (and heirs) being his last visual memory before he, himself, was blinded. [75]

But with all of this tragedy associated with the day, some might want to argue that it is the last holiday you would expect to be connected with the Incarnation. And that would be a legitimate complaint if not for a prophecy found in the Book of Zechariah. Therein the prophet foretells that the Fast of the Fourth Month (Tzom B'Tammuz) will be turned into an occasion for joy with the coming of the messiah. [76] And how better can this fast day be turned to joy than by the arrival of the final Davidic King who has come among us to build a Church that the walls of hell cannot prevail against? [77] This has to be accepted as more than sufficient evidence that this displacement of the fast (from 17 to 15 Tammuz) is warranted.

A16.2: Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot

Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot (the New Year for Sacrificial Animals) is a holiday that seems to have originated in the Second Temple period as the day each year the animals in one's possessions were to be judged for their suitability for sacrifice. And of that lot, those that were selected to be given to the Temple were marked for that service with red paint. The timing for this event is also in line with the proclivity back then to breed livestock so that they gave birth in late summer. But the date many felt should apply to this holiday was not universally accepted.

There was, in fact, a debate back then as to whether there should even be a separate holiday, with some arguing that the selections should be made on 1 Tishri (the common New Year, aka Rosh HaShanah). [78] The majority opinion, however, argued for the 1st day of the prior month (Elul). And that is where it stands today. But those opposed apparently felt that that timing was too early to accommodate all the newborns that would be eligible for sacrifice during the High Holy Days of Tishri.

It is worth noting also that the compilation of the Talmud, from which we get this information, did not start until a century or more after the Temple had been destroyed and Temple sacrifice was no longer happening. So that is a century or more that the holiday was no longer relevant. So there is a lot of room for speculation as to what date, if any, that the people of New Testament times were observing this holiday.

The 2/3rds Rule, for its part, does acknowledge that the holiday likely existed, but offers a third possibility for the date. In appreciation for both positions listed in the Talmud, it proposes one of compromise that is also amenable to three additional arguments directly from Scripture. The proposal is 15 Elul. And along with being exactly centered between the two extremes ...

it is also coincidental with a full moon, making it (like I5 Pesach and I5 Sukkot) a very popular day for creating a holiday,

it is in compliance with the Scripture commanding that newborn sacrificial animals be granted 1-week to be with their mothers before being sacrificed, [79]

and it extends the stay of execution to 2 weeks for compliance with the scriptural requirement that firstborns receive a double portion of every inheritance. [80]

It is not unreasonable, then, that such a system may have been in place at the time of Christ. But the 2/3rds Rule comes down hard in its defense, providing two more arguments to recommend it.

It sets Mary's August 19th birth to 15 Elul in 24 BC. And with her being, by tradition, a firstborn child who would (at the age of 14) be asked to offer up her life to God (and perhaps even lose it), it perfectly fits the occasion.
And if that is not enough, we also see the 2/3rds Rule connecting it to the day Christ is proposed to have received St. Joseph's September 3rd deathbed blessing in 19 AD. And that too gave Jesus 2 weeks of years to be with His mother before being asked to offer up His life in 33 AD.

With two, therefore, independent calculations both testifying to the same Hebrew calendar date and so eloquently associating it to the events it is connecting to, the case seems to be sufficiently made. And it is God, once again, who appears to have anticipated this one might be a tough sell, which is why He gave us two events to corroborate it.

A16.3: Tzom Gedaliah

The Bible does not provide a date for the Fast of the 7th Month, nor does it provide the reason for the fast. It is traditionally assumed to commemorate the assassination of the governor (Gedaliah) that the Babylonians appointed to oversee Judah after they'd conquered it. Hence the name, Tzom Gedaliah. But, other than the month, the Bible doesn't say when that happened either. The Talmud sets it to 3 Tishri, [81] while another ancient source explains that the assassination actually took place on 1 Tishri, but the fast was set to the 3rd because of the conflict with Rosh HaShanah. [82] And the reason for this belief appears to have come solely from an imaginative interpretation of Scripture. The Hebrew word for "month" can apparently also be interpreted as "new moon". So the Bible verse that says it happened in the 7th month is being reinterpreted as the 7th new moon (which would make it 1 Tishri).

Altogether, the evidence in favor of 1 Tishri or 3 Tishri seems pretty weak. And most modern Christian theologians, and even a few of the Jewish persuasion, are of the opinion that the true date of the fast has been lost. [83] It is worth noting, however, that the prophet Jeremiah's description of events places the assassination during a formal dinner. [84] And Rosh HaShanah may seem like a good occasion for such an event. But there are other holidays in Tishri that might be similarly good candidates for having a state dinner. And the holiday proposed by the 2/3rds Rule, Erev Yom Kippur, is conspicuously known for being a day devoted to lavish dining. [85]

Besides that, Jeremiah's account also includes an incident that happens the following day involving penitents arriving in Jerusalem. [86] And that, too, would point more to Yom Kippur than Rosh HaShanah. But there is no ancient source to back up the claim that Gedaliah was assassinated on 9 Tishri (Erev Yom Kippur). So the burden of proof to corroborate this claim lies entirely with the 2/3rds Rule. And just like before the Rule delivers. But this time with 3 independent corroborations.

The first comes directly from the Creation saga, because the date that marks the onset of the 3rd Period of Creation Level V is October 1, 32 AD. And that corresponds on both the Temple and Common Hebrew calendars, to Erev Yom Kippur that year. This alone does not really tell us a lot about what happened on this day. But the other important dates around it suggest it should designate some new innovation being added to the Church Christ is building in this Level. And Periodicity adds that it should be some new form of miraculous bond being introduced into our world.

Remarkably, it is also the 40th Julian calendar birthday of John the Baptist. That is the 2nd corroboration, because with Scripture informing us that John died a martyr's death, on what better day could it have happened than his 40th birthday? It likens the timing of his life almost perfectly to that of Jesus (the man his sole purpose is to herald). But if Gedaliah's assassination was also on Erev Yom Kippur, it, too, can be seen as a foreshadowing. It foretells of the state dinner where John will also lose his life.

So that's one powerful corroboration that the date of the fast day has been found. Yet there are still some crucial elements missing. John's death doesn't seem to have anything to do with the building of a Church. There is no miraculous bond. And Zechariah had prophesied that the sadness of the fast day would be turned to joy in the Messianic age. [87] Not to worry. This is where the third independent corroboration steps in to tie everything up. And this one comes mainly from Scripture.

But there are really three sources, or rather clues, from which it is derived. It starts by discerning the date for the Transfiguration in 32 AD. And for that, Scripture, the astronomical record, and math, all combine to make a convincing case for the Transfiguration taking place on the first day of the Feast of Booths in 32 AD.

It is hinted at by St. Peter in his offer to build booths for the Transfigured Jesus and His guests, Moses and Elijah. [88]
It would have occurred during a lunar eclipse. [89]
And it would have been exactly 180 days (or, rather, 1/2 of an Apocalyptic year) from the Resurrection, making it a preview of coming events. [90]

And that is why many scholars today have come to that opinion. It would have been on October 7 that year. And this being true it gives us the date that Jesus selected Peter, called him the Rock, and gave him primacy over the Church He was building. According to Matthew's Gospel, that would have happened 6 days prior, [91] and presumedly also on Erev Yom Kippur that year. What we are seeing, then, by Peter's selection is an answer to all the remaining questions.

Given that the previous step in the building of the Church (on September 27, 31 AD) was the selection of its 12 Foundation Stones (see A16.4), the next logical step was to select one of those to serve as its Cornerstone. He would also become, in this way, the nucleus for Christ's Church, being miraculously bonded to all within it as their servant leader and infallible guide. [92] But maybe the most beautiful aspect of Peter being called to high office on Tzom Gedaliah is how elegantly it fulfills Zechariah's prophecy concerning the fast of the 7th month. It is a day that is most certainly turned to joy with the coming of the Messiah. In it we see that a new governor has been selected to replace the one that has fallen. And he is a governor that can never again be assassinated, because he can always be rejuvenated by the process (established here) of Apostolic Succession.

A16.4: Simchat Torah

Simchat Torah is a holiday that celebrates the Torah, and it is the day that the Torah readings for the year begin anew. So it doesn't really seem to have a lot of relevance to the New Testament event it is being claimed to connect to. And that would be the day that Jesus selected His 12 Apostles, or rather, 24 Tishri (September 30) in 31 AD. This is a situation, however, where one tiny aspect of an Old Testament event is focused upon, and turned into a holiday, while the greater significance of the day seems to have been lost.

The holiday arose largely from a very poignant event in Jewish history that took place in the war- torn city of Jerusalem shortly after the people have returned to it at the end of the Babylonian exile. As described in the Book of Nehemiah, [93] the Temple is no more and the lives of the returning refugees are in shambles, but there is hope. And it is personified in a figure the Bible refers to as Ezra, the Scribe. This may or may not be his true identity and we'll dig into that further at the end of this discussion. But for now, we'll call him Ezra.

And in getting back to the story, Ezra read to the people from the Torah throughout the month of Tishri. The Torah at this time was not well-known to the people, so for many it was their first exposure to the spoken word. [94] And in hearing it they learned who they were as a people. But more importantly they learned what they'd done to bring down all the calamities they'd suffered. So after Ezra had finished, on 24 Tishri, they all came to together, representatives of all twelve tribes, [95] in sackcloth and ashes, and repledged themselves to the Covenant they now realized they'd broken. And the day after that they commenced rebuilding the Temple, starting, of course, with its foundation. So its connection to Jesus selecting His 12 Apostles makes now a ton of sense, because they are the foundation stones for the structure He came here to build, the Church. [96]

It is understandable, though, if the center of attention in this story is going to be on the Torah reading, that it would come to be associated with 23 Tishri (which is the day after the festival of Sukkot. And it also understandable that by the time of the compilation of the Talmud the end of the Torah cycle would come to be associated with Shmini Atzeret, which is where it has been elevated in modern times and distinguished with its own holiday, Simchat Torah. It is further acknowledged that the renewal of the Torah cycle does deserve to have its own holiday.

But the events of 24 Tishri, at the time of Ezra, deserve a holiday, as well. And at least one sect of Judaism seems to be of that opinion, too. In recognition of the popular date for Tzom Gedaliah, at 3 Tishri, being just an educated guess, and in recognition of the penitential nature of the events of 24 Tishri, this is when the Karaite Jews observe that fast. [97] The discussion in A16.3 demonstrated, however, the true date of Tzom Gedaliah. So for lack of something more descriptive, Simchat Torah is what we have been given to ascribe to the lost holiday of 24 Tishri a name.

Getting back, as promised, to the question of who this person was who inspired the Judahites, at issue is the jumbled nature of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Trying to put together a reliable timeline of events from their narratives is in some cases rather difficult. And this story regarding Ezra's Hakhel in Tishri is one of those cases, because there appears to be two mentions of it in Scripture. One has a time stamp that places it just after the refugees have returned from exile in 539 BC. And the other is dated around 80 years later during the reign of king Artaxerxes I. For this reason the popular opinion today amongst scholars is that they tell of two different events.

The 2/3rds Rule takes the alternate view, that they are two separate accounts of the same event. And it is a view that can be easily justified. In the account from the Book of Ezra, [98] which is dated just prior to the onset of the construction of the Temple there is no mention of Ezra but there is mention of the Feast of Booths being celebrated. And in the account that does include Ezra, the one from the Book of Nehemiah that supposedly took place 80 years later, there is a second mention of the Feast of Booths being celebrated. But it also states that it was a lost holiday that hadn't been celebrated since the days of Joshua. [99]

There is something obviously amiss. If these are two unrelated events, separated by 80 years, how can the earlier event include the celebration of a holiday that Scripture later tells us the people would have had no knowledge of? So that is one argument for seeing the two accounts as describing the same event. But there are other such clues that recommend it. For another, Ezra's father for is listed in the Book of Ezra, as Seraiah. [100] But Seraiah was slain during the Babylonian conquest of Judah in 586 BC. [101] So Ezra would have had to have been, at a minimum, 130 at the time of his Hakhel if it occurred, as popular opinion is claiming, around 458 BC. On the other hand, if it took place in 538 BC, as the 2/3rds Rule is claiming, he would have been around 50.

On the other side of the coin, there are quite a few mentions of Ezra in the Book of Ezra and they are all unambiguously associated with the time of Artaxerxes I. So there is a real mystery here on this one. And truthfully if going solely by Scripture, popular opinion does seem to make the better case. Nevertheless, the 2/3rds Rule is adamant that the two accounts describe the same month of Tishri and wonders whether the two figures named Ezra in the biblical narratives are the same person.

A16.5: Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot

At the time of Christ, Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot (the New Year for fruit bearing trees) is another of those holidays where there was debate as to when it should be celebrated, the rabbinical House of Shemai favoring 1 Shevat and the House of Hillel favoring 15 Shevat. [102] The House of Hillel eventually won the debate and it is observed on 15 Shevat to this day. But the question posed by this book is, Why? Why was it even up for debate? Was this a new holiday being proposed? And if it wasn't, what had the date been before the argument began? The Talmud doesn't say. But the 2/3rds Rule has an opinion.

The holiday arose organically out of a command from God that the fruit of a tree was not to be eaten until its 5th year. Moreover, on its 4th year its fruit is to be offered up to God so that the tree will continue to yield. [103] To do this, however, it is necessary to know when to count tree years from. And although this may have originally been on Rosh HaShanah, it is easy to see how it might have moved, since the most natural time to count trees from would be in the spring when many come out of dormancy.

And therein lies the problem, because the Hebrew calendar is not the ideal choice for trying to discern the first day of spring. Any given month can differ by as much a month from year to year in relation to the seasons. So if accuracy is the goal, a solar calendar is what you'll want to use. And February 1 on the Julian calendar was observed in many cultures at the time of Christ as the first day of spring. [104] This is also the day the 2/3rds Rule chose to land on to mark the onset of the 4th Period of Creation Level V.

It is not 15 Shevat. In 33 AD it would have actually been 12 Shevat. But look at how well it fits the situation. It sees Jesus, on February 1, commencing His 4th year (from the perspective of the trees) and being called to Jerusalem that He can offer Himself up to the Temple as the first fruits of the tree He has planted that it (His Church) can continue to yield.

It is an elegant solution, whose only drawback is that it is 3 days shy of when the holiday is currently observed. But there is a good case that can be made that it was observed on February 1 in New Testament times. For one, it makes a great deal of sense that the Jewish people would be employing the Julian calendar for determining the 1st day of spring back then. And it is also understandable, given how hated the Romans had become in Jesus's day, that the rabbinical Houses would be looking for a Hebrew calendar solution to reassign the holiday to. But as it was with several of the holidays under this heading, we are in need, nevertheless, of some additional corroboration. And the 2/3rds Rule, once again, provides it.

In chapter 6 it was found that 2/3rds of the way between the date St. Peter was given primacy by Christ and the date all the clues point to that he was crucified under Nero, calculates to 12 Shevat in 54 AD. It is not the 1st of February (it is actually February 8), so it is not a connection to Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot. It is rather a connection to Christ's call to Jerusalem in 33 AD. And it proposes that St. Peter was being called to Rome this day, to establish Christ's Church there, and to eventually come to glory, in imitation of his Master.

But for any still unsatisfied, there is one final selling point for the argument worth mentioning. From the perspective of the trees, if February 1 truly is their new years day, this would make April the 3rd month of the year. And that would also mean that Jesus, the first fruits of the Tree of Life, was offered up at 3 PM on 3/3/33 AD in the middle of a lunar eclipse that lasted for 333 minutes. [105] That's an awful lot of threes.

Section 4: The odds

This Section is not for anomalies. Its purpose is to assess, instead, the improbability of all these holiday connections occurring by accident now that the anomalies have been identified. And we'll start by noting that, when all is said and done, there are 60 events from New Testament times that can be dated and connected to observances from the Hebrew calendar. They are listed chronologically below as Results Table 1.

St. Joseph's conception on I Chanukah (Dec. 6, 63 BC)

St. Joseph's birth on Rosh HaShanah (Sept. 4, 62 BC)

St. Joseph's circumcision on Shabbat Shuvah (Sept. 11, 62 BC)

St. Joseph's Bar Mitzvah on Shabbat Shuvah (Sept. 15, 49 BC)

St. Joseph's commissioning on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (Apr. 1, 26 BC)

The Immaculate Conception on I Chanukah & Shabbat Chanukah (Dec. 6, 25 BC)

Mary's birth on Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot (Aug. 19, 24 BC)

Mary's Bat Mitzvah on Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot (Sept. 4, 12 BC)

The announcement of John the Baptist's conception on Tzom Asara B'Tevet (Jan. 4, 9 BC)

The betrothal of Mary and Joseph on Queen Esther's wedding day anniv. (Jan. 15, 9 BC)

The Annunciation on Tzom B'Tammuz & US Independence Day (July 4, 9 BC)

The Visitation on Tzom Tisha B'Av & Shabbat Hazon (July 27, 9 BC)

John the Baptist's birth on I Sukkot (Oct. 1, 9 BC)

John the Baptist's circumcision on Shmini Atzeret (Oct. 8, 9 BC)

The wedding of Mary and Joseph on Queen Esther's wedding day anniv. (Jan. 3, 8 BC)

The Holy Family is warned of betrayal on Shabbat Zakhor (Feb. 22, 8 BC)

The Holy Family begin a fast on Ta'anit Esther (Feb. 24, 8 BC)

The Holy Family is acquitted at trial on Purim (Feb. 25, 8 BC)

Mary's Labor begins at the onset of Kriyas Yam Suf (Apr. 3, 8 BC)

Jesus is born at the end of Kriyas Yam Suf (Apr. 5, 8 BC)

Jesus is circumcised on Rosh Chodesh Iyar & Shabbat Mevarchim, (Apr. 12, 8 BC)

The Presentation on Shavuot (May 16, 8 BC)

John the Baptist's Bar Mitzvah on Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot (Oct. 10, 5 AD)

Jesus is found in the Temple on Kriyas Yam Suf (Apr. 11, 6 AD)

Jesus's Bar Mitzvah on Rosh Chodesh Iyar & Shabbat Mevarchim (Apr. 17, 6 AD)

John the Baptist's ordination on I Sukkot (Sept. 24, 17 AD)

Jesus receives St. Joseph's blessing on Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot (Sept. 3, 19 AD)

St. Joseph's death on the Day of the Dove & US Labor Day (Sept. 4, 19 AD)

John the Baptist is called to ministry on I Sukkot (Sept. 22, 28 AD)

Jesus begins His 40-day desert fast on Rosh Chodesh Elul (Aug. 18, 30 AD)

Jesus is baptized on Yom Kippur (Sept. 27, 30 AD)

The Miracle at Cana on I Sukkot (Oct. 2, 30 AD)

The Cleansing of the Temple on Yom HaAliyah (Mar. 22, 31 AD)

The Apostles are selected & the Sermon on the Plain on Simchat Torah (Sept. 30, 31 AD)

Peter given Primacy w/John's death on Erev Yom Kippur & Tzom Gedaliah (Oct. 1, 32 AD)

The Transfiguration on I Sukkot (Oct. 7, 32 AD)

The first Apostolic mission on Shabbat Shirah (Jan. 31, 33 AD)

Jesus begins His 40-day Lenten fast on Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot (Feb. 1, 33 AD)

The miracle of the fish and the Temple tax on Shabbat Shekalim (Feb. 14, 33 AD)

The multiplication of the loaves and fishes on Erev Shabbat Zakhor (Feb. 27, 33 AD)

Jesus walks on water & discourses on the Bread of Life on Shabbat Zakhor (Feb. 28, 33 AD)

The death of Lazarus on Purim, (Mar. 3, 33 AD)

The raising of Lazarus on Shabbat Parah (Mar. 7, 33 AD)

Jesus finishes His 40-day Lenten fast on Shabbat HaChodesh (Mar. 14, 33 AD)

Jesus is anointed on Shabbat HaGadol (Mar. 27, 33 AD)

The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on Yom Ha'Aliyah (Mar. 29, 33 AD)

The 2nd anointing on Yud Gimmel Nisan (Apr. 1, 33 AD)

The Last Supper on I Pesach (evening) (Apr. 2, 33 AD)

Christ's Passion and death on I Pesach (day) (Apr. 3, 33 AD)

Holy Saturday on Shabbat Chol HaMoed Pesach (Apr. 4, 33 AD)

The Resurrection on III Pesach (Apr. 5, 33 AD)

St. Thomas sees the risen Christ on Kriyas Yam Suf (Apr. 12, 33 AD)

The Ascension on Yom Yerushalayim (May 16, 33 AD)

The Descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (May 24, 33 AD)

St. Paul's conversion on Shabbat Shekalim (Feb. 6, 34 AD)

The Assumption on Hag HaAhava & Shabbat Nahamu (Aug. 18, 53 AD)

St. Peter's call to Rome on Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot (Feb. 8, 54 AD)

St. Paul's 2nd encounter with the risen Christ on Shabbat Hazon (July 27, 54 AD)

St. Peter's crucifixion on I Sukkot (Oct. 13, 64 AD)

St. Paul's beheading on Shmini Atzeret (Oct. 20, 64 AD)

And of these 60, 12 were known (or were available to be known) from the dawn of Christendom via Written or Oral Tradition. They are depicted in greenish yellow font. And of those 12, the 2/3rd Rule played no role in dating 7 (other than confirming the year they occurred). All 53 others (highlighted in red) are established through the 2/3rds Rule. And the statistical improbability of every one of those events connecting to an observance from the Hebrew calendar presents a powerful argument for their validity. They are not all available for determining the odds, however.

The 7 unhighlighted events have, of course, no business in an odds calculation. But there are also some events that have to be considered just too speculative. And that would include Mary's Bat Mitzvah, her betrothal, Jesus's formal Bar Mitzvah, John the Baptist's ordination, the miracle of the fish and the Temple tax, and the 2 days of events associated with Shabbat Zakhor in 33 AD. So that's 14 altogether that can be eliminated from the discussion without any argument. But we want to be conservative. So lets throw out a few more that could be argued to be in the category of borderline. They are St. Joseph's commissioning, all 3 events associated with the trial of the Holy Family on Purim, the first Apostolic mission, the death and raising of Lazarus and everything associated with Sts. Peter and Paul during their later ministerial years.

And that trims it down to 34 days that can be utilized for determining the odds. But there are 3 more that should be added. The events of Holy Week are not so much about the holidays they correspond to as they are about how well the times of day that are predicted fit with the scriptural narrative. And therein we see that the 2/3rds Rule called out a reasonable time of day for every monumental event told us (and timestamped) in the Gospels in that week. [106] So with their being 4 separate times of day mentioned in Scripture on good Friday and all 4 being accounted for by the 2/3rds Rule, they deserve to be considered in the odds calculations as well. And brings the total number available for the calculation up to 37.

And finally, to wrap this up, there are 2 more that need to be eliminated, but not because they are speculative. To get all the times of day for all the other events predicted by the 2/3rds Rule that are listed in Figure A2, there were two events whose times of day were intentionally set. And they are the Annunciation set at midnight at the start of July 4, 9 BC and the Crucifixion set at 3 PM on April 3, 33 AD. To avoid, therefore, any claims of manipulation of the odds, they will need to be sacrificed, which brings the total to 35. And we are left with the Amended Results Table shown below.

St. Joseph's conception on I Chanukah (Dec. 6, 63 BC)

St. Joseph's birth on Rosh HaShanah (Sept. 4, 62 BC)

St. Joseph's circumcision on Shabbat Shuvah (Sept. 11, 62 BC)

St. Joseph's Bar Mitzvah on Shabbat Shuvah (Sept. 15, 49 BC)

The Immaculate Conception on I Chanukah & Shabbat Chanukah (Dec. 6, 25 BC)

Mary's birth on Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot (Aug. 19, 24 BC)

The announcement of John the Baptist's conception on Tzom Asara B'Tevet (Jan. 4, 9 BC)

The Visitation on Tzom Tisha B'Av & Shabbat Hazon (July 27, 9 BC)

John the Baptist's birth on I Sukkot (Oct. 1, 9 BC)

John the Baptist's circumcision on Shmini Atzeret (Oct. 8, 9 BC)

The wedding of Mary and Joseph on Queen Esther's wedding day anniv. (Jan. 3, 8 BC)

Mary's labor begins at the onset of Kriyas Yam Suf (Apr. 3, 8 BC)

Jesus is born at the end of Kriyas Yam Suf (Apr. 5, 8 BC)

Jesus is circumcised on Rosh Chodesh Iyar & Shabbat Mevarchim, (Apr. 12, 8 BC)

The Presentation on Shavuot (May 16, 8 BC)

John the Baptist's Bar Mitzvah on Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot ( 5 AD

Jesus is found in the Temple on Kriyas Yam Suf ( 6 AD

Jesus receives St. Joseph's blessing on Rosh HaShanah La'Behemot (Sept. 3, 19 AD)

St. Joseph's death on the Day of the Dove & US Labor Day (Sept. 4, 19 AD)

John the Baptist is called to ministry on I Sukkot (Sept. 22, 28 AD)

Jesus begins His 40-day desert fast on Rosh Chodesh Elul (Aug. 18, 30 AD)

Jesus is baptized on Yom Kippur (Sept. 27, 30 AD)

The Miracle at Cana on I Sukkot (Oct. 2, 30 AD)

The Apostles are selected & the Sermon on the Plain on Simchat Torah (Sept. 30, 31 AD)

Peter given Primacy w/John's death on Erev Yom Kippur & Tzom Gedaliah (Oct. 1, 32 AD)

Jesus begins His 40-day Lenten fast on Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot (Feb. 1, 33 AD)

Jesus finishes His 40-day Lenten fast on Shabbat HaChodesh (Mar. 14, 33 AD)

Jesus is anointed on Shabbat HaGadol (Mar. 27, 33 AD)

The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on Yom Ha'Aliyah (Mar. 29, 33 AD)

The 2nd anointing on Yud Gimmel Nisan (Apr. 1, 33 AD)

The Last Supper on I Pesach (evening) (Apr. 2, 33 AD)

Jesus before Pilate at 9 AM on 1 Pesach (day) (Apr. 3, 33 AD)

Jesus is crucified at noon on I Pesach (day) (Apr. 3, 33 AD)

The last 40 minutes before Jesus died on I Pesach (day) (Apr. 3, 33 AD)

The Assumption on Hag HaAhava & Shabbat Nahamu (Aug. 18, 53 AD)

And our goal now will be to find the probability that these dates, selected without prejudice by a mathematical algorithm, would all coincidentally, either land on established observances from the Hebrew calendar or (in the case of Holy Week), land on the times of day emphasized by the Gospels as being important.

The question before us, however, is, how rigorous do we want to be? And the reason for asking is that there are elements of subjectivity involved, so the more intense the treatment the less likely the results are going to be accepted. There is a tradeoff, too, in that the simpler you make it, the lower the precision. To provide meaningful results, therefore, it will be done as simplistically as possible without sacrificing precision so much that it becomes nonsensical. And that means the final assessment will have to be a ballpark approximation.

So, in going for the simplistic solution, it seems best to start by determining how many observances should be involved. And that would definitely include all 17 observances mentioned in Figure 3.1 and the 10 Special Sabbaths mentioned in Figure 3.2. All of them were shown to be fulfilled in New Testament times as were a few others. They are Yom HaAliyah, Yud Gimmel Nisan, Erev Pesach, Erev Yom Kippur, Ta'anit Esther, Kriyas Yam Suf, and Queen Esther's Wedding Day together with the two Chol HaMoed Sabbaths and Shabbat Mevarchim. That brings the total number of observances that may have been known in New Testament times to 37.

So an extremely simplified probability assessment would start by saying that each time the 2/3rds Rule calculated a date, the odds that it would coincide with an observance from the Hebrew calendar is 37/365. In other words there is roughly 1 chance in 10 that a randomly selected date would coincide with an observance. And with there being 35 such coincidences, the overall probability of it happening by accident is 1/10 to the 35th power (or 1 chance in 100 decillion). That's a one with 35 zeroes after it.

But we're shooting for something a little more accurate than that. And there are a lot of other factors to consider that will help us get there. Uncertainty, for instance, plays a huge role. There is the inherent uncertainty of ±1 day in determining the first day of each month. There is the uncertainty of human gestation, which can vary by as much as 10 days within the normal range of expectation. There is the uncertainty of what the Bible means when it says something happened after say 40 days or 6 months. Is it exactly or approximately? And there is also the huge uncertainty of those observances, like Esther's Wedding Day and Tzom Gedaliah, where the only reliable information about them is the month in which they occurred.

And there are other kinds of uncertainties to consider. This list is not yet exhaustive. And when taken into account they do have the effect of improving the odds, considerably. But there is a counterweight, too. And it adds an element of subjectivity, as well. It is the Selectivity of the seen in the connections. And it deserves a place, because there are some observances that just seem tailormade for the date they are being connected to. It is hard to imagine, for instance, a holiday more appropriately suited for Jesus's baptism than Yom Kippur. You can't say that for every date, but you can for many. And when taken into consideration, it has a huge effect on the odds. Instead of an individual probability being 1 chance in 10, in some cases it can be better represented by as much as 1 chance in 365.

And the end result, after Selectivity is factored in, more than makes up for the Uncertainty, causing the overall improbability of these observance connections happening by accident to soar even higher. Without going into detail, a conservative estimate puts it at 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power (or 1 chance in 10 duodecillion). That is a 1 with 40 zeroes after it. Some will, of course, want to argue that number. But the reader does not have to accept this finding to recognize how ridiculously high the odds are against mere coincidence. It can be verified at home with something as simple as a bowl of M&Ms.

Start by putting 37 of one color into the bowl. They are the 1st Rank M&M and they represent the 27 listed in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 along with the 10 just added to the list 5 paragraphs earlier. So having now done that add 74 more of a different color. They are the 2nd Rank M&Ms and they take into account the ±1 day uncertainty inherent to the way each new month back then was determined. But with the bowl now containing 111 M&Ms, 254 more of a third color will need to be added to bring the total up to 365. They are the 3rd Rank M&Ms and they represent the ordinary, non-holiday, days on a yearly calendar.

The hard part of not eating the M&Ms completed, all that is still needed is a pad to keep score. Or for anyone interested, a link to a blank tally sheet is provided. Just click, cut and paste. So with pad and pencil now in hand take one M&M out of the bowl (without looking). Record what you see. And do this 35 times, making sure that you put the M&M back in the bowl after each draw. (You can eat them later, if you like, but not yet). Score 2 points for each 1st Rank M&M found, 1 Point for each 2nd Rank M&M found, and 0 Points for all the 3rd Rank M&Ms found. Then add up your score. There is no telling what it will be from one trial, but if you do this several times, the average score should hover around 14. That is the approximate mean determined by this study from 3,500 trials using a spreadsheet program containing a random number generator. It calculated a mean of 14.4 with a Standard Deviation of 4.00. [107]

But, for those unfamiliar, the Standard Deviation of a normal, bell-shaped, distribution tells you how much of the population will lie within its limits. And the likelihood of a score being seen decreases dramatically with each Standard Deviation it strays from the mean. To give an idea, there is a rule of thumb known as the 68-95-99.7 Rule that is used to define the first 3 Standard Deviations in a standard bell-shaped distribution. That is, if the distribution is standard, 68% of the population should fall within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean. Or, to put it into terms of what we are doing here, there is a 68% probability that any score you get will be 14.4 ± 4. Taking it a step further to 2 Standard Deviations, there is a 95% probability that the score will be somewhere between 6 and 22. And there are only 3 chances in 1,000 trials of seeing a score of 26 or higher, as that would be greater than 3 Standard Deviations from the mean.

It should be obvious, therefore, that Standard Deviation is not a linear function. And after 3 Standard Deviations the improbabilities get ridiculously high. In IQ assessments, for instance (where the mean is 100 and the Standard Deviation is 15), anything above 3 Standard Deviations (or 145) is considered genius level. And IQ scores beyond that limit are deemed by many nonsensical since the improbability has become greater than the precision of the testing methods. There are other applications, however, where higher Standard Deviations have meaning. But once you get past 8 Standard Deviations you have also surpassed the limits of most marketed spreadsheet programs. EXCEL, for instance, cannot calculate improbability beyond 15 decimal places.

That said, now let's see how the 2/3rds Rule fared after taking the same test. It chose Orange M&Ms to represent its Direct Hits column, Green M&Ms for its direct hits with minor uncertainties column, and Brown M&Ms represented those where the uncertainty was deemed too pronounced. The results are given below in Figure A3.

So, as can be seen, it scored a 52! And that puts it at a level greater than 9 Standard Deviations from the mean! Figure A4, below, shows it from a graphical prospective to better represent how outlandish such a score really is. [108]

As to the improbability of a score falling between 9 and 10 Standard Deviations (with it being way beyond the capacity of most spreadsheet programs to correctly calculate it), a guestimate (based on the extrapolation of the curve produced by plotting the difference in Standard Deviations from 1 to 8) puts it at less than 1 chance in 10 to the 21st power. [109] In other words, you would likely have to take the test 1 Sextillion times in order to see a score as high as 52, just once. And at 5 minutes per trial (assuming also that you don't stop for coffee or anything), it would take you roughly 10 quadrillion years.

But again, you don't have to take this book's word for it. Do the trials, as many as it takes to get an idea of how remarkable a score of 52 would be. And don't stop there. Take a look at Figure A3, as well. See if you can find a way of manipulating the data to produce a score more in line with what coincidence would prefer. At some point the recognition should sink in that the amount of conniving required to get the results down to such a degree cannot be justified if the goal is to be objective.

And remember, Figure A3 was the stripped down, example of a probability evaluation. There were 18 other events that could have been included, but weren't, in order to keep it ultra-conservative and allay accusations of partiality. Their connections to holidays, however, deserves some consideration, as well, since in the end, every fast, holiday and Special Sabbath that was observed in New Testament times (and then some) found a connection to the Life and Times of Christ. That alone is a powerful testimony. But it is only the half of it, since every event in the Life and Times of Christ discerned via the 2/3rds Rule can also be said to have found an appropriate connection to an important date from the Hebrew Calendar. And there are no exceptions in either category!

In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that there really is no such thing as an empirical proof. Everything in modern science is theoretical and it has within it no inherent means by which to ascertain an absolute truth about anything. So to call this book an empirical proof of the existence of God is technically incorrect. Apologies are, therefore, in order, because, like any scientific theory calling itself proven, though it may be extremely unlikely for it not to be true, it can never be considered rock-solid.

But that is a good thing. It means that faith is still required. And that is the way God apparently wants it. We can know with absolute certainty that God exists. Credo ut intelligam gives us that. But even though the odds may be a zillion to one in His favor we still cannot say it is proven. When it comes to proving God's existence, that one atom of doubt might as well be Mount Everest, for it keeps us as separated from true faith just as efficiently.

So as a former atheist, I can relate to anyone who is still struggling with this theory. It took me years to find faith, even after I'd started studying the 2/3rds Rule and the odds that supported it were going off into the stratosphere. I became for a time just an atheist who could prove the existence of God. And this did not give me pleasure. In fact, it sickened me, I wanted nothing more to do with it. So I ran away from it. And it wasn't until after my conversion, several years later, that I was able to return.

It was, once again, cognitive dissonance at the core of my distress. And the reason for it, I've since learned, is this. Faith, the kind that saves, comes to us from God and through the heart, not the brain. It seems to have been set up that way that we would all have an equal shot at salvation. So to any unbelievers out there who've gotten this far and recognize the logic, but are as sickened by the conclusions as I was, do not despair.

It does not have to take years of painful soul searching (as it did with me) to be relieved of your misery. In the end you will find, if you are honest with yourself, that your difficulties all stem from a lack of faith. And that is a matter that is easily remedied simply by lowering your pride, humbling yourself before God, telling Him you’re sorry and asking for His help. [110]

If you can do all that, with sincerity, you will begin to see. You have my word on it, but more than that, we have God's word on it. [111] And if this book has led one person to knock on that door it is worth every ounce of effort and every prayer I've said in putting it together. So that is ultimately what this book is about. It cannot give you faith, but if I did my job right it may give some sound reason to seek it. And hopefully some will.

REFERENCES

Baker, Henry 2024. “New study confirms the moon is older than we realized — and reveals why

we previously got it wrong” LiveScience Available at https://www.livescience.com/space

/the-moon/new-study-confirms-the-moon-is-older-than-we-realized-and-reveals-why-we-

previously-got-it-wrong.

Chabad.org. 2026. "Tuesday, 13 Nissan, 5786" Chabad.org website. Last visited 3/3/26.

Available at https://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?hdate=1/13&mode=j.

Cowen, R. 2000. History of life. Boston: Blackwell Science.

Espenak, Fred. December 21, 2014. "Six Millennium Catalog of the Phases of the Moon."

Astropixels.com. Accessed September 17, 2017. http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat

/phasescat.html.

Espenak, Fred and Meeus, Jean. 2009. NASA Technical paper TP-2009-214172 “Five

Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (map years -0344 to +0070).” NASA

Eclipse Web Site. Avail. at https://eclipse.gsfc .nasa. gov/5MCLE/5MCLE-Figs-05.pdf. Last

visited 9/29/23.

Gibson, Timothy M., et.al. 2018. “Precise age of Bangiomorpha pubescens dates the origin of

eukaryote photosynthesis.” Geology 46(2): 135-138. Available online at

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/46/2/135/524864/Precise-age-

of-Bangiomorpha-pubescens-dates-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Hoyle, F. and N. C. Wickramasinghe. 1978. Lifecloud: The origin of life in the universe. NY:

Harper and Row Publishing Co.

Humphreys, J. and Waddington, W.G. 1989. Astronomy and the Date of the Crucifixion

published in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to

Jack Finegan. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 172-81.

Jaubert, Annie, 1957. La Date de la cene. Paris: Gabalda.

Karaites.org 2018. "Karaite Jews of America: Karaite Customs and Religion" Karaite.org

website. Last visited 3/7/26. Available online at https://www.karaites.org/karaite-customs-

and-traditons.html.

Pronechen, Joseph, November 4, 2021 "Was St. Joseph Assumed Into Heaven? Here’s What the

Saints Say" National Catholic Register. Available online at

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/was-st-joseph-assumed-into-heaven-here-s-what-the-saints-

say.

Renne, P. R., A. L. Deino, F. J. Hilgen, K. F. Kuiper, D. F. Mark, W. S. Mitchell, L. E. Morgan,

R. Mundil, and J. Smit. 2013."Time Scales of Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-

Paleogene Boundary." Science 339, no. 6120 (2013): 684-87. doi:10.1126/science.1230492.

Ross, H. 2008. Why the Universe is the way it is. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Walker, Alexander (transl.) 1886 from Ante-Nicene Fathers: translations of the writings of the

Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol. 8. Edited by Roberts, A., Donaldson, J. and Coxe, A. C.

Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Revised and edited for New Advent by

Knight, K. Available online at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm.

Weisberger, Mindy, 2020. “7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth”

LiveScience Available at https://www.livescience.com/oldest-material-on-earth.html

ENDNOTES

[1] The Cosmic Back-ground Energy (discovered by Bell Labs in 1964) is the residual noise

that still permeates the universe to give witness of the initial enormity of the Big Bang.

[2] Ross 2008.

[3] Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1978.

[4] … any older and it is believed the estimated matter of the universe would be too dispersed

to stop the expansion.

[5] For a simple web explanation see the Wikipedia entry on Dark Energy.

[6] But this does not mean that the atheist argument is dead, because there can never be an

ironclad proof of the existence of a Creator. That would negate the need for faith. It is saying,

however, that the more the empirical evidence in favor of God mounts, the more contrived the

atheist's argument is becoming.

[7] Weisberger 2020. And this meteorite, which struck Australia in 1969 is also remarkable

for the optically active amino acids it contains. These compounds are produced on earth, too,

but generally only by living organisms.

[8] Baker 2024.

[9] It also shows that, had they only looked, the 2/3rds Rule might have easily been

discovered by geologists decades ago!

[10] And the only major subdivision seemingly missing on this chart is our Phylum

(Chordata), which would lie on the chart between our Kingdom (Animalia) and our Class

(Mammalia).

[11] Gn 1:12.

[12] Their fossils are dated at 1.05 Ga (Gibson, et.al. 2018).

[13] It should be pointed out, though, that anachronisms are not unheard of in Scripture.

Compare, for instance, the ordering of the 3 temptations in Mt 4:3-11 and Lk 4:3-13. And, for

an Old Testament example, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are rife with anachronisms.

Anomaly A16.4 (which see) looks at one of them.

[14] Christian apologists have puzzled over this seeming incongruity as far back as Origen's

Homilies on Genesis 1, 5 (3rd century AD). And Talmudic rabbis have commented on it, too.

[15] Gn 1:14-19.

[16] Although somewhat outdated, the term, K-T extinction is still in common use and comes

from the German initials for the geological Periods that frame the event. They are the

Cretaceous (Kreide) and the Tertiary (Tertiär). The Tertiary Period, however, has since been

divided into two smaller Periods (the Paleogene and the Neogene) and the term, Tertiary, is no

longer in common use.

[17] For references to both estimates see Cowen 2000 and Renne, et.al. 2013.

[18] This is determined by tallying the timespans given for the biblical Patriarchs in Gn 5:1-

22 and Gn 11:10-26. And by those verses, the Hebrew text computes the span from Adam to

the birth of Abraham to be 1,948 years, while the Greek Septuagint has it is 3,414 years.

[19] To name just 3 it included 2 separate fulfillments of Daniel's 70 weeks of years

prophecy, together with its strongest corroboration the way it perfectly aligned his wedding

day to the lives of the Jesus and Mary. It did this by occurring precisely two-thirds of the way

into his life and coinciding with Mary's wedding being precisely two-thirds of the way into

her pregnancy.

[20] Mt 17:24-27.

[21] Referenced in Mt 17:1-9, the Transfiguration has been dated by this study to have

occurred on Oct. 7, 32 AD.

[22] Referenced in Mt 17:14-2, this study has determined that Jesus gave His disciples the

power to expel demons on Jan. 31, 33 AD.

[23] Jn 6:1-15.

[24] Jn 6:16-21.

[25] Jn 6:22-71.

[26] Jn 6:68, NABRE.

[27] Jn 6:70, NIV.

[28] Jn 12:4-6.

[29] Dt 25:17-19.

[30] Mk 14:1 sets Judas's betrayal to Spy Wednesday which would have been 13 Nisan in 33

AD. And Est 3:12 sets Haman's treachery to the same day.

[31] It is debated whether Haman's death described in Est 7:9-10 was by impalement or

hanging. And Judas's death described in Mt 27:5 and Acts 1:18 displays the same amount of

ambiguity.

[32] The 4th Creation milli-Second began on Feb. 1 and ended on Mar. 14.

[33] That would include Shabbat Shirah, Shabbat Shekalim, Shabbat Zakhor, Shabbat Parah,

Shabbat HaChodesh and Shabbat HaGadol.

[34] Lv 23:24.

[35] As per the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:9.

[36] Mt 16:18-19.

[37] Mt 23:2-3.

[38] A good example of this special relationship God had with the Judean High Priest is found

in Jn 11:51.

[39] The synoptic Gospels connect the Last Supper to the Passover Seder meal, setting the

Crucifixion to I Pesach (Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7-8). Whereas John's Gospel shows that

the Temple priests were slaughtering the Paschal Lambs on the day Jesus was crucified 9 (Jn

19:14), setting it to Erev Pesach. So in assuming both accounts to be accurate, the Temple

priests appear to have missed the new moon on the day it would have first been visible to

them and declared the new month a day after the Apostles were observing it.

[40] This, by the way, also effected the dating of Pentecost. And assuming the Apostles

observed it in accord with the Temple, the counting of the Omer would have begun on their

understanding of II Pesach (i.e. Resurrection Sunday).

[41] And there are several ways the true date of the new moon can be discerned more

accurately, observations of the waning moon being one.

[42] Humphries and Waddington 1989.

[43] This proposition is not unheard-of. As has been famously pointed out by French scholar,

Annie Jaubert, there were many other calendars in use back then besides that of the Temple

(Jaubert 1957).

[44] Rabbi Ahai of Shabha (8th century AD) She'iltot iv.

[45] Protevangelion of James (ca. late 1st century AD) translated by Walker 1886, 15-16.

[46] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33 & Lk 23:44.

[47] Wis 18:14-15, DR.

[48] The three exceptions are the times listed for hte Resurrection, the Nativity and the onset

of Mary's labor. The timing for the Resurrection is derived from the tradition that Jesus was

entombed for 40 hours. And the other two times are derived from the logical interpolation that

Mary's labor foreshadowed Christ's entombment.

[49] Jn 1:33.

[50] Lk 3:2.

[51] Lk 1:13.

[52] Lk 1:31.

[53] This is the date found after the necessary adjustments are made, as discussed under the

previous heading (Anomaly A13).

[54] Mt 3:13-15.

[55] ... as per Lv 16:8-10, 20-22.

[56] Lv 16:8.

[57] The synoptic Gospels have Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days after His baptism. (Mt

4:1-2, Mk 1:12-13, Lk 4:1-2) But John's Gospel contradicts this, speaking instead of Jesus

showing up the next day to beacon His first Apostles (Jn 1:35). In either case, though, Jesus

seems to have spent the night in the desert.

[58] Mt 26:41 and Ep 6:11, among many others.

[59] Jas 1:13.

[60] 1 Tm 2:4.

[61] CCC 2846.

[62] Ex 14:21 shows that the Sea was split around dusk, with the actual crossing not

commencing until the following morning. And Ex 14:24 suggests that the crossing ended

around dawn on either the following day, or possibly the day after that.

[63] Dt 5:15 suggests the crossing ended on a Sabbath, while tradition also sets 10 Nisan in

1453 BC (the year of the Exodus) to a Sabbath. By that understanding, 24 Nisan would,

therefore, also be a Sabbath. And NASA does confirm it would have been (as per table B25 in

Appendix B).

[64] Ex 12:37 speaks of 600,000 men but when women and children are added it would

number more than a million.

[65] Due to how shallow it is (compared to other possible sites in the Red Sea), one of the

more popular opinions as to the location of the crossing (Nuweiba beach on the Gulf of

Aqaba) is still a ten mile hike on a narrow path that can be as much as a half mile deep in

spots.

[66] Est 3:12.

[67] In accord with Jos 4:19-5:10, the Second Circumcision took place some time between 10

and 14 Nisan.

[68] Mt 26:2, 13, Mk 14:1, 9.

[69] Chabad.org 2026.

[70] In the Book of Genesis, the flood began in the 2nd month (Gn 7:11) on Cheshvan

(traditionally). And by 10 months later (on 1 Av) the flood waters had so diminished that

mountaintops could be seen. (Gn 8:5). Then 40 days later on 10 Elul Noah sent out a raven

(Gn 8:6-7). And 7 days after that (presumedly) on 17 Elul he sent out a dove. (Gn 8:8).

[71] It is the biblical Song of Songs that equates the Jewish people to a dove (Sg 2:14), a

point the Midrash writers expounded upon.

[72] Gn 8:8-12).

[73] Pronechen 2021.

[74] The Israelites reached Mt. Sinai on the 1st day of Sivan (Ex 19:1). They are traditionally

understood to have been there for 6 days when they had their Pentecost encounter with God

(Ex 19:2-16). And Moses, having gone up the mountain after that to meet with God was told

40 days later of the holiday (Ex 24:18, 32:7) that presumedly established on the 15th of

Tammuz.

[75] Jer 39:2, 2 Kgs 25:6-7.

[76] Zec 8:19.

[77] Mt 16:18.

[78] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 2a.

[79] Ex 22:30.

[80] Dt 21:17.

[81] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 18b.

[82] Radak, Commentary on Jeremiah 41:1.

[83] The Karaite Jewish community being one. See Anomaly A16.4.

[84] J er 41:1.

[85] Just as it is a mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur, it has become a mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom

Kippur (The Sulchan Arukh, OC 604:1).

[86] Jer 41:4-5.

[87] Zec 8:19.

[88] Mk 9:5-6 suggests the possibility it was the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter when he

said it.

[89] Espenak and Meeus 2009.

[90] It is exactly 180 days from Oct. 7, 32 AD to Apr. 5, 33 AD.

[91] Mt 17:1, Mk 9:2.

[92] CCC 881-882.

[93] Neh 8:1-9:1.

[94] The Babylonian captivity is commonly held to have been a watershed moment for Jewish

spirituality, forcing their Priests and Scribes to reinvent their religion by moving it away from

Temple worship to focus on the Torah to maintain their identity. And Ezra was in the

vanguard for introducing it to the people on their return.

[95] Neh 9:1-2 doesn't say this specifically, but, in the use of the term Israelite, it does seem to

be implied.

[96] Eph 2:19-21.

[97] Karaites.org 2018.

[98] Ezr 3:1-6.

[99] And to make sure there is no confusion as to which Joshua they are referring to he is

called out in Neh 8:17 as Joshua, son of Nun.

[100] Ezr 7:1.

[101] 2 Kgs 25:18-21.

[102] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 2a.

[103] Lv 19:23-25.

[104] It is still celebrated today in some Celtic lands as the holiday of Imbolc.

[105] Espenak and Meeus 2009.

[106] Figure A2 provides those times together with their Scriptural references.

[107] These trials will not be published here since they are easily reproduced by anyone so

inclined to do so.

[108] The bell curve for Figure A4 was created at statscalculators.com and integrated into

the graphic (https://www.statscalculators.com/calculators/chart/bell-curve-graph-generator).

[109] For any who might find this information useful, the improbability of a score being

beyond each successive Standard Deviation (σ) from 1 to 8 is as follows.

1σ = 1 chance in 3,

2σ = 1 in 22,

3σ = 1 in 370,

4σ = 1 in 16 thousand,

5σ = 1 in 1.7 million,

6σ = 1 in 507 million,

7σ = 1 in 391 billion,

8σ = 1 in 804 trillion,

[110] … with the precedent being set in Lk 15:11-32.And if you are still having trouble, let

Jesus walk you there by becoming one with Him in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. It

worked for me. And I am certain it will work for anyone.

[111] Mt 7:7-11.

Published: March 10, 2026

Last Update: March 11, 2026