A.D., B.C. - not P.C.

The American Thinker ^ | November 18th, 2004 | Selwyn Duke

[ASA Vet]

Now, there's a useful scale. Changes every day

All dating systems are useful only to the people who accept the context.
10,000 years from now it's not likely the current systems being championed will be known expect in historical studies.

[Prime Choice]

our numbers “the Common Numerals”

What's interesting is that "our" numerals are actually Arabic in origin. But when we adopted them, the Arabs -- being the oh-so-culturally-sensitive types -- got pissed off and changed their numerals since they couldn't abide by infidels using their invention.

And now we're having this anti-Christian bullcrap forced on us by those who want to go out of their way to appease those very Arabic "cultures."

Allah will be eating ham sandwiches before I do that crap.

[Junior]

Read my last post to you, first. And, BTW, I wouldn't mind going to a Julian calendar, with each day consecutively numbered (from 001 to 365) throughout the year. January 1, 2005 would then be 2005-001. July 4th the same year would be 2005-185. Lots of folks already use Julian calendars, so it's not that great a leap.

[FreedomCalls]

Dude, y'all are going off the deep end on this. The months needn't change. Retroactively adding a year 0, however, makes counting dates across the great divide a whole lot easier. It also eliminates the need for the AD/BC/CE/BCE squabble; years prior to 0 would be designated with the minus sign.

Then you are missing my point. If you don't have difficulty counting days across the month divide or months across the year divide why do you have particular difficulty counting across the BC/AD divide? All three are ordinal numbers. This is the 18th day of the 11th month of the 2004th year. Why do you have a hard time grasping that concept?

A year is not a single point in time, no more than a month or a day is. You don't start counting days or months with a zero, why would you start years with a zero?

[FreedomCalls]

January 1, 2005 would then be 2005-001.

Why not 2005-000?

[Junior]

All three are ordinal numbers.

There is nothing written in stone that requires this to be. It really doesn't matter what a year is called -- they could be assigned letters for all that it matters. Assigning 1BC the name "0" does not effect the fact that it was a year (I'm thinking you're really going out on a limb on this one). It's irrelevant if it's an ordinal or cardinal number. Hell, other years have number designators; this one would be no different. The folks alive at the time didn't even realize they were living in the year 1BC as it was. The year 0 idea is proposed to simplify the dating system by making counting across dates easier and eliminating the clunky addition of letter groupings.

If you want to be forever beholden to an inumerate 5th century monk, more power to you. However, I am not the first person to bemoan the lack of a year 0; there were numerous articles to this effect four years ago when everyone was arguing whether 2000 was the beginning of the millennium (it would be with a year 0).

[Junior]

Because it's the first day of the year. The year 1 would be the first year of Christ's life. We'd simply retroactively make the previous year 0. You are wandering off into irrelevancies, now.

[familyop]

"Oh, grad school dill-holes."

What are "dill-holes?" I must lack the religious background for that expression. Is it a polytheism thing?

[FreedomCalls]

Because it's the first day of the year. The year 1 would be the first year of Christ's life.

Aha! You're beginning to see the light. And 1 BC was the first year before Christ's life. 2 BC was the second year before Christ's life, and so forth.

You can no more have a zero year than you can have a zero month or day.

[William Terrell]

Perhaps you need to upgrade to GodSoft Covenant v 2.0. The date problem was in Covenant v 1.0 and is not longer supported.

[FreedomCalls]

there were numerous articles to this effect four years ago when everyone was arguing whether 2000 was the beginning of the millennium

And those articles were followed up by letters to the editors telling them they they were wrong and didn't understand the difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. Go back and look.

[mlocher]

gosh, i thought that we would be speaking esparonto by now.

[mlocher]

Let me explain to you why. The term before "Christ" automatically acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah and son of G-d. Since I a Jew do not believe he was (is) it makes no sense for me to use the term BC. In respect of the Christian calender which bases its 2 era's on the life and death of Jesus I believe that by using the same timeline but not acknowledging Jesus as more than a Rabbi ie. BC, I am showing respect to your religion while not using terminology which defies mine. Let me know what you all think.

i have learned to meet people on their ground to have a meaningful discussion. not doing so would void me of some very meaningful and fun relationships. if you want to use ce and bce, ok -- but i will have to ask you what you mean when you use it (perhaps 3 or 4 times as i can be dense). i have no problem with your usage if you don't mind me asking clarifying questions.

i do have a problem with trying to use ce/bce as a means to change our culture to make its usage "the norm". i do not recall who said it, but it has some wisdom, "when in rome, do like a roman."

[W. W. SMITH]

BCE = before Cristian era

CE = Cristian era

This has caused a few of the PC crowd to walk away muttering and shaking their head.

[W. W. SMITH]

cristian = Christian

Evan the spell check did not catch it. LOL

[Nowhere Man]

I always thought BCE and CE stood for "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era." I remember seeing them used back in the 1970's and I asked my grandmother them, "what do they mean?" and that's what she told me.

Remember:

BCE = Before Christian Era
CE = Christian Era

[Nowhere Man]

Everything that is significant in the world began on 9 September 1998. Someday soon historians will be using BBtD and ABtD. Or else.

Silly, don't ya know that America was discovered in 1942 by Christopher Columbus and he named it "Bonerland?" B-D I heard it from Bart Simpson. B-D

[Nowhere Man]

I always use BC and AD. If the professor insists on using CE and BCE, usually I put a description: Christian Era and Before Christian Era.

Heh, did you know my grandmother? B-) Briefly, she told me the same thing when I asked her about BCE and CE.

[Countyline]

Terrific perspective with a touch of humor on a serious subject. I often say that step by step and incrementally one can get used to anything.

Then, before you know it, you have a cooked bullfrog. I know, I know, I mixed the metaphors. But, it said it best, cause that is the way civilization is going, going, going, gone...

[SJackson]

Silly, don't ya know that America was discovered in 1942 by Christopher Columbus and he named it "Bonerland?" B-D I heard it from Bart Simpson. B-D

Wasn't that 1941?