Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Bambi B on December 17, 2002 at 00:42:07

In Reply to: What's wrong with B.C. and A.D.? posted by bubbahotep on December 16, 2002 at 22:27:36:

bubbahotep,

For a more definable date, I use B.C. and A.D. I do find it odd though we use the English "Before Christ" and the Latin "Anno Domini" for after.

I use "B.C.E." - Before Common Era- when referring to pre history- a very approximate early time- like the origin of the Universe fifteen billion years ago, the mass extintion of the dinosaurs 65 million B.C.E., the migration from Asia to North America 12,000 B.C.E., and etc. "B.C.E." allows scientist-approved sloppiness.

Dates in the West are a conundrum as in the absence of any evidence there is conjecture that Christ was born between what we call 4 B.C. and 6 A.D. -and possibly in March or April rather than December. This makes Millenial hysteria- that happened in both 1000 A.D. and 2000 A.D.- less accurately timed, especially as the 2000th year after Christ was Jan 1 ,2000.

"A.D". was not used until the 6th C. A.D.and was still based on a complex calculation of 750+ years backwards.

As there is no year "0", is the original Christmas December 25, 1 B.C which then turned to 1 A.D. (two years later by date) a week later on January 1? Anyone living during the translation between B.C. and A.D. has to have two years subtracted from the addition of the BC and AD numbers.

Then there was the change from Julian to Georgian calendar that changed everything, because the equinoxes were getting so far off their dates. Ten days were omitted from the calendar, and it was decreed that the day after Thursday October 4, 1582 would become known as Friday October 15, 1582. The rent came up faster in Europe that October!

Whichever it is, have a merry approximately "2002" Christmas and a very happy so-called "2003" yourself!

Cheers,

Bambi B