To: Maury
I think its "before the common era" and "common era". It is an attempt to remove "Christ" as a pivotal historical event. The most "sophisticated" archaelogists always use this device don't ya know.
15 posted on
11/10/2005 4:53:58 AM PST by
Drawsing
(The fool shows his annoyance at once. The prudent man overlooks an insult. (Proverbs 12:16))
To: Drawsing
That's exactly what it is - pure PC BS.
25 posted on
11/10/2005 6:04:21 AM PST by
WorkingClassFilth
(The problem with being a 'big tent' Party is that the clowns are seated with the paying customers.)
To: Drawsing
"I think its "before the common era" and "common era". It is an attempt to remove "Christ" as a pivotal historical event. The most "sophisticated" archaeologists always use this device don't ya know."
They claim that this method is used due to a flaw in the dating of the BC system.
Archaeologists claim that this system does not account for a few years, and that by adjusting the BC dating system Christ would actually have been born in 4 BC.
So, 4 BC is thought to be 1 CE.
All of that may be true, but they sure go all the way when it comes to ignoring Christ.
29 posted on
11/10/2005 6:12:09 AM PST by
Preachin'
(Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
To: Drawsing; Maury
I think its "before the common era" and "common era". It is an attempt to remove "Christ" as a pivotal historical event. Plus them Jews have this wzcky objection to acknowledging Our Lord.
35 posted on
11/10/2005 6:27:48 AM PST by
Oztrich Boy
(Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson