We can't judge or re-interpret our Bible based upon modern "sky-chart" software! After all, no such software can explain Joshua's "long day" - or the possible shift from a 360 day year to our modern 365.25 day year, it is not even addressed based upon the assumption of "continuity", which is an assumption flatly rejected by the Bible (2 Peter 3:5-6) . We should just believe the Bible as written and not try to change it where it does not make sense to us. God is always right.
However, some things are just unclear. What is clear is that passover's month ("Abib") seems to become the "first month" in Exodus 12:2 as a special designation celebrating the exodus, not the creation. This makes sense, as in the Jewish people were being called out of Egypt and they would no longer celebrate a common "new year" with the rest of mankind, but have their own special new year. Therefore, one would assume that the regular seventh month ("Rosh hashanah") was the new year. However, this point has been disputed even among the ancient rabbis, as this statement from the chabad website suggests:
They seem to "cut the baby in two" and say that God thought about it, and then did it 6 months later! That really seems like a bogus explanation, but that's what they do to try to make sense of it.
The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 10b-11a) cites two opinions as to the date of G-d's creation of the universe: according to Rabbi Eliezer: "The world was created in Tishrei" (i.e., the sixth day of creation--the day on which Adam and Eve were created--was the 1st of Tishrei, celebrated each year as Rosh Hashanah); according to Rabbi Joshua, "The world was created in Nissan." As interpreted by the Kabbalists and the Chassidic masters, the deeper meaning of these two views is that the physical world was created in Tishrei, while the "thought" or idea of creation was created in the month of Nissan. (http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?tdate=3/30/2006)
So the divergence in opinion about the date of creation makes Noah's dates disputed also:
The following is a chronology of the Flood, as indicated by the dates and time periods given in the Torah's account and calculated by Rashi:
Cheshvan 17: Noah enters ark; rains begin.
Kislev 27: Forty days of rain end; begin 150 days of water's swelling and churning, during which the water reaches a height of 15 cubits above the mountain peaks.
Sivan 1: Water calms and begins to subside at the rate of one cubit every four days.
Sivan 17: The bottom of the ark, submerged 11 cubits beneath the surface, touches down on the top of Mount Ararat.
Av 1: The mountain peaks break the water's surface.
Elul 10:Forty days after the mountain peaks becom visible, Noah opens the ark's window and dispatches a raven.
Elul 17: Noah sends the dove for the first time.
Elul 23: The dove is sent a second time, and returns with an olive leaf in its beak.
Tishrei 1: Dove's third mission. Water completely drained.
Cheshvan 27: Ground fully dried. Noah exits ark.
(This chronology follows the opinion of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eliezer; according to Rabbi Joshua's interpretation, the Flood began on Iyar 17, and all above dates should be moved ahead six months.)
Total time that Noah spent in the ark: 365 days (one solar year; one year and 11 days on the lunar calendar).
http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?AID=150114
As the saying goes, "I don't have a horse in this race" and so I won't venture to guess which interpretation is correct. St. Paul didn't want the gentile church to get hung up on these types of disputes that plagued Judaism for centuries.
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Some may think the key to figuring this out will be by means of a "vertical word study" and then venture to pronounce whether or not certain old texts are more "inspired" than others because they tend to prove one viewpoint or the other (i.e., does the Aramaic Bible spell out the months with names, while other versions don't?). The Bible says that "ALL scripture" is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16). So the question to ask is "what constitutes "scripture"? Whatever that "scripture" is it must then follow that "it" is given by inspiration of God. Now notice this fact about the context of this verse, the "scriptures" are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:15- "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
What did Timothy know? He knew "the holy scriptures" that, according to the context of these verses, were "given by inspiration of God"!! Did Timothy have original "autograph" manuscripts, or did he have COPIES??
Final authority is obviously a big deal. Those who resort to man's "vertical word study" (dig deep down into the past of old manuscripts and ancient words) instead being taught by the Holy Ghost in "horizontal word study" (comparing spiritual things with spiritual throughout the length and bredth of the entire King James Bible that God gave us "by inspiration" in the English language).
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Something to think about.
- M