Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nothernlights

Uh, no...that's BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy).

Besides, isn't the current best guess that Christ was born in 4 BCE, so that to use BC in that context would be self-contradictory?


8 posted on 11/18/2004 10:51:29 AM PST by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: jejones

Sorry!! Too Bad !-- About your other point: a pope in the 900 adjusted the calendar and changed the years. Are you advocating we should change the current date to 2008 .Is that your main concern, that we correctly reflect the date of the birth of Christ.


19 posted on 11/18/2004 10:57:48 AM PST by nothernlights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: jejones

I thought the calender had been corrected for that a long time ago. Is that still how it is? I'd heard that also, many years ago, but I thought the last update to our calender system was corrected for this. Does anyone have the real scoop on that?


32 posted on 11/18/2004 11:20:08 AM PST by jim35 (I'll bet Dasshole is Deeply Saddened now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: jejones

No, 2 BC/BCE.


74 posted on 11/18/2004 12:08:59 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson