• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Lunar timeframe for gestation?

steve

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Somewhat off topic.
Does anyone have any info about the human gestation period being related to a time period of 280 days being ten original lunar months?
Any Biblical reference?

The question is being asked by a friend who is deeply studying birthing issues.
 
You asked for hard facts so I will give you completely unfounded opinion bolstered by nothing but my admittedly extensive experience in the field; it would make perfect sense. I hope someone has a real answer because it would explain something's.
 
ZecAustin said:
You asked for hard facts so I will give you completely unfounded opinion bolstered by nothing but my admittedly extensive experience in the field; it would make perfect sense. I hope someone has a real answer because it would explain something's.
Click to expand...
Ha! This was exactly my thoughts, and I'm sitting here waiting to see if someone has some decent evidence. Really does make sense though.
 
Just thinking more about this, apparently only 4% of women give birth on their 'due date' or 280 days, it's the median, not the average. 280 days is calculated from the first day of your last period, which is at least 2 weeks before you actually get pregnant, so really gestation is less than that.
Also, babies come when they feel like it. I should know, I've had a vast range, and I'm normally sure of the actually-got-pregnant-on-this-night, date.
So, I wouldn't put too much weight on the 280 days. 9 months, 10 months, lunar months, all those are up for discussion though.
 
I would doubt that a "perfect original" month was originally 28 days, since that would make a 12 month year only 326 days long, far shorter than anyone generally proposes, requiring a 13 month year.

From a biology side, a human gestation is not 280 days. As Sarah pointed out, few women birth on their due date, most naturally go over this by a week or so. The standard numbers are based on studies on small numbers of women hundreds of years ago and recited ever since, it's not sound science.

Gut feel says no. Though the same gut also says it's not worth debating, feel free to conclude yes. :)
 
FollowingHim said:
I would doubt that a "perfect original" month was originally 28 days, since that would make a 12 month year only 326 days long, far shorter than anyone generally proposes, requiring a 13 month year.
Click to expand...
I thought lunar calendars were based on a 13-month year....
 
They are. I didn't explain myself properly. My thinking was, in a "perfect" original system, you'd expect the moon, stars and sun to work in synchrony. So there'd be 12 astral months perfectly aligned with 12 lunar months and perfectly making one solar year.
However I realise I'm making even more leaps in my assumptions about the moon than steve's original premise makes, so can't really consider my long string of assumptions any sort of sound argument against steve's original proposition, and should probably just shut up. Carry on...
 
Steve, I don’t know about the 28-day thing, but Wikipedia has some background about the lengths of lunar months. As noted there, “Most calendars referred to as ‘lunar’ calendars are in fact lunisolar calendars.”

Speaking of which: Gung hai fat choi! — a happy and prosperous Chinese New Year to all folk of BF.
 
Last edited:
I like to think of it as a 40 week purification process. Sometimes God shortens the days or there would be none left alive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top