One of the criticisms levelled against the Creation Calendar and our claim that the sabbath is properly calculated from the monthly New Moon and not by an endless 7 day cycle, is the critics' assertion that since the moon was created on the fourth day, then the sabbath could not have been on the seventh day, as the creation account in Genesis 1 clearly states.

But does it? The claim that the moon was created on the fourth day is based on an entirely false assumption.

"Then Elohim (God) made (asah) two great lights: the greater light (sun) to rule the day , and the lesser light (moon) to rule the night. He made the stars also" (Gen.1:16, NKJV).

"In the beginning Elohim (God) created (bara) the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) was hovering over the face of the mayim (waters). Then Elohim (God) said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And Elohim (God) saw the light, that it was good; and Elohim (God) divided the light from the darkness. Elohim (God) called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were Yom Rishon (the first day)" (Gen.1:1-5, NKJV).

How did they become invisible on the fourth day? What rendered them invisible prior to the fourth day? The thick canopy of water that was above the earth. When this was removed or dispersed, the sun, moon and stars became visible to animal life on earth that followed in the next two days.

Any other scenario just results in impossible scriptural contortions (which atheists understandably scorn) for if you accept the classic notion that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, then you have the problem of explaining how light came into existence on the first. Quite apart from the connundrum as to how that light was made (i.e. what was emitting it - you have to posit some mystical supernatural magic latern) you are left with the equally baffling question: what for? Why make light before making the sun and stars when there was no need for it until the fourth day?

I prefer to follow the plain Hebrew and the principle of Occam's Razor, namely, that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. It is my belief, reading the p'shat or plain sense of Scripture, that the earth being described in verse 1 is not the same as the earth described in verse 2, that a large period of time existed between the two (this is not the 'Gap Hypothesis' which concerns periods of times betweeen the creation days themselves). Genesis 1:2 and onwards reads to me not of the earth being created de novo but of the earth being reformed after a devastating deluge that left the planet dead and omne giant sea. If you are interested in learning more about this scenario, then please read my sermon, Human Angels: With What are You Building Your Life? that talks about the time earth was an angel planet that was destroyed by Yahweh following the rebellion. But that, is they say, is another subject altogether.

There is, I am sure you will agree, a huge difference between a 'creation' and an 'appointment'. If Yahweh had wanted us to believe the sun, moon and stars were created, He would have used the word bara, not asah. If you carefully research this topic you will not only get confirmation of this but that there is no contradiction with Yahweh's Creation Calendar. It is those who follow the Roman Calendar who must try to explain away all the anomalies and contradictions to Scripture that their system brings.