Hawking's BHT tried to show mathematically, that time had a beginning.
IMHO, time is not a man made concept, but an original, promodial and fulcrum entity. It is not akin to a ruler measuring time sequences, but the other way around.
IOW, the period of the moon's revolution follow a precedent time constraint, as opposed time reflecting that period of the moon's movements. While this is difficult to illustrate, an anology can help, by reducing a construct in actual terms. If we ask, how is time factored in the making of a car, for example, we can say this is implicit, even if it is not stated in the manufacturing manual. Because it will be a failure if the car cannot sustain itself to a nominal time factor of usage.
Similarly, if all the engineerings which make up the moon and its revolutions were not time factored - the moon would not exist as we know it. Just as surely as the moon depends on gravity, it also depends on applying itself to a time factor. This applies to everything in the universe.
Is a pineapple, a car or a star displaying a time seen from the view of humans - or are they representing a precedent time factor requirement which makes them what they are: this is the question! And its answer lies in that all those products obey a precedent time factor - as seen by other pineapples, cars and stars, which also align with what is clearly a precedent time constraint.
Is a human pregnancy [generally] reflective of and obeying a 9 month period factor - or is the 9 month period obeying that pregnancy's demands? IMHO, the former prevails here, because the time factor is aligned with other such pregnancies, and with the internal mechanisms of the mother and child, to allign with that time factor. Thus the time is a precedent, fulcrum entity, akin to forces such as gravity and light.
™ Version 4.2
