Posted on 11/18/2004 10:39:06 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Throw it right back at them - pronounce the new acronyms like this:
B.C.E. [Before the Common Christian Era]
C.E. [The Common Christian Era].
>>My personal pet peeve, however, is the lack of a year 0. I think we should take 1 BC (or BCE) and make that the year 0.
So, 11 and 11/12 months later zero time has passed?
Starting at year 1 was the correct way of counting. So, on December 25, year 1 we know we are in the first year but it hasn't yet been completed. We know it hasn't yet completed by the use of the month and day. Either start at 1 or use fractional years and completely disregard the month.
I'm editing a book by an academic who was actually a Carter appointee to some minor post. The pretentious academic had the nerve to write the following sentence, the ultimate in liberal creepspeak:
"Christ died in 34 CE."
I am NOT kidding.
The word Christ in reference to one whom Jews do not accept as the messiah is the main problem for most Jews and that is the reason for the different terminology.
So, what do use? Do you use CE and BCE or the Jewish calendar. It's a pertinent question to ask because you seem to advocate the replacement of BC and AD for BCE and CE, while you preference is for the jewish calendar.
You'll enjoy post #83 on this thread
When speaking, if constrained to use BCE or CE, I refer to them as "Before CHRISTIAN Era" and "CHRISTIAN Era".
Makes the froth fly.
You said it correctly there. We would be in the first year (a time span). The point zero would be midnight on December 31st 1 BC - January 1st 1 AD. And did you notice I said December 31st? It's not confusing not having a day zero in each month is it? So why would we need a year zero?
That depends on what dates you are speaking of. A year is a span after all, not a point. Jan 1st 5 BC and December 31st 5 AD are indeed ten years apart.
I know why CE/BCE was created and that doesn't change the obnoxious character of it's use. The Chinese don't believe in Christ either but they don't pretend the Gregorian calendar doesn't exist when using it.
I was taught that failure to acknowledge the work of others was a form of plagiarism.
The Jewish calendar has none of these.
here is a good explanation of the Jewish calendar.....
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=43&letter=C&search=jewish%20calendar
as far as my prefrence, I live in the USA and there is only 1 calendar here and that is what I use. I just choose to not refer to Jesus as "Christ" because it goes against what I believe in. I posted earlier that if I was Christian I would use BC/AD but because of my faith I do not. An example would be 2004 A.D.M.(Mohammed) how would that make you feel? (Not that I equate Jesus whom I look upon as a righteous man, a rabbi and a scholar as the same as Mohammed), but I do not see either as more than mortal. Please do not be angry about my example there is no equating the 2
>>Jan 1st 5 BC and December 31st 5 AD are indeed ten years apart.
Dec 31, 5 BC and Dec 31, 5 AD are nine years apart.
>Dec 31, 5 BC and Dec 31, 5 AD are nine years apart.
Just as I said -- it entirely depends on the dates you select -- I selected two dates 10 years apart, you selected two dates nine years apart. You could just as easily have selected two dates that are 9 and a half years apart. The point being that a year is a span in time not a point in time. Years are counted by ordinal numbers, not cardinal numbers.
>Dec 31, 5 BC and Dec 31, 5 AD are nine years apart.
And Dec 31st 5 BC and Jan 1st 5 AD are eight years apart. Your point?
If you can point out to me any of those on this thread, I'd be happy to.
"... Oh, yeah, that'll give people a good impression of Christians..."
Please. Like I care what non-Christians think about my religion. You think being nice to ACLU types is going to make them play nice, too?
I don't find it obnoxious in the least. So the problem would seem to be subjective, not objective.
I think we're in agreement here, I think.
Had to look up for cardinal numbers, though. Cardinal numbers are what are also known as counting numbers, aren't they? If so, then, cardinal numbers are being used for years, not ordinal numbers. Or, I still don't get it? :)
My stand on this is that it wasn't wrong to start counting at year 1. It is understood, for example, that on year 2005, June 30, 2,005 less one-half years have approximately gone by, disregarding hours. Likewise, had we started with year zero, on the same date, 2,004 plus half-years had gone by. The natural thing would have been to start at year zero and use fractional year during year one and subsequent to that. But fractions are hard to envision. Therefore, it wasn't so bad afterall to start at 1, and keeping in mind that the whole year hadn't gone by until Dec 31.
So, do you think we should go back 1 year or leave it as it is?
Just as an aside, "Common to whom?"
Ask a Jew, a Muslim, a Chinese what year it is. There are several others, too.
This is the Christian calendar, and if others choose, for convenience, to use it, then they can accept its conventions and terminology.
>>And Dec 31st 5 BC and Jan 1st 5 AD are eight years apart. Your point?
My point, or my points? I used two points in time whose timeframe is 9 years.
Rust never sleeps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.