NationStates Jolt Archive

(I hope there is no problem referring to another board here.) There's an argument going on in the IMDB Boards about the merits of BCE and CE over BC and AD for dates. (linky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/board/nest/89448581))

Yeah... the subject line says it all. BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini) have pretty much been removed from scholarly use and have been replaced with Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE).

I'm not saying that the title of the film should be changed... but... ya know... maybe it should, if only for the sake of the people involved with the film (so they don't look like idiots)

I've seen both used and understand what someone is saying when they use any one of them. My question is this: Does anyone here actually get offended if someone says, for example, 541 BC instead of 541 BCE? Or vice versa?

AC/DC [/end thread]

I'm not really bothered with what people use to be fair.

They can call it what they want.
*shrugs*

I don't give a shit. Its as good a dating system as any, really.

(I hope there is no problem referring to another board here.) There's an argument going on in the IMDB Boards about the merits of BCE and CE over BC and AD for dates. (linky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/board/nest/89448581))



I've seen both used and understand what someone is saying when they use any one of them. My question is this: Does anyone here actually get offended if someone says, for example, 541 BC instead of 541 BCE? Or vice versa?




Thats strange. In my experiance, BC and AD are still very much used in the scholarly circle. I use BC/AD because, well its what Ive been using for as long as I can remember.

The use of CE/BCE has always confused me. Surely if you want to secularise the notation you would pick a non-religious date as year zero.

AC/DC [/end thread]

I'm not really bothered with what people use to be fair.

Actually, lets switch to the AC/DC system instead! \m/

Well the old method has distinctly Christian meaning, which in an international setting is inappropriate. Most people aren't Christian afterall.

Well the old method has distinctly Christian meaning, which in an international setting is inappropriate. Most people aren't Christian afterall.

Actually, most people are Christian. More people on the earth are Christian than anything else.


Besides, its scholarly tradition. Frankly, getting all hot and bothered over it is just a waste.

Well the old method has distinctly Christian meaning, which in an international setting is inappropriate. Most people aren't Christian afterall.

Perhaps, but the whole system is based around the birth of Christ anyway, whether you call it something else or not.

Actually, lets switch to the AC/DC system instead! \m/

And lo 1 AC to 2000 AC was known as the Sin City era. The there was the coming of Angus and Malcolm Young who proclaimed Rock should change the world. From there on the people entered the Rocker age and it was good.

Actually, most people are Christian. More people on the earth are Christian than anything else.


Besides, its scholarly tradition. Frankly, getting all hot and bothered over it is just a waste.

No, they're not. Christians make up only about 33% of the world's population. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

They're the largest single group, but not a majority.

Well, until I read this I had never known anyone to get offended at one way or the other. But by the reaction, apparently some people do.

Actually, most people are Christian. More people on the earth are Christian than anything else.


Besides, its scholarly tradition. Frankly, getting all hot and bothered over it is just a waste.

Not to mention that the new system still isn't neutral, as it still caters mainly to a western viewpoint and still has the birth of christ as their reference point.

The Chinese still have their calender and I am sure the muslims do too, so this new system is in no way neutral at all and fails in it's every attempt.

Why write BCE when you can just write BC? you save a letter ;)

BCE/ CE makes more sense so I prefer to use that, though not for PC reasons.

Actually, most people are Christian. More people on the earth are Christian than anything else.


Besides, its scholarly tradition. Frankly, getting all hot and bothered over it is just a waste.
Um...no. Most people are NOT christian. Christians make up, iirc, around 30% of the world population. They are the largest group, but not a majority.
Additionally, traditions change. The majority of scholarly work, especially that of history and anthropology, use CE and BCE now.


CE and BCE are more accurate anyway, considering Christ was born somewhere around year 30 CE

You should make a poll.

Actually, most people are Christian. More people on the earth are Christian than anything else.

plurality does not equal majority

CE and BCE are more accurate anyway, considering Christ was supposedly born somewhere around year 30 CE

Fixed :p

The use of CE/BCE has always confused me. Surely if you want to secularise the notation you would pick a non-religious date as year zero.

it is easier to change a couple letters that are only used in specific contexts than to change (and have to 'translate') dates that are in common popular usage.

Not to mention that the new system still isn't neutral, as it still caters mainly to a western viewpoint and still has the birth of christ as their reference point.

The Chinese still have their calender and I am sure the muslims do too, so this new system is in no way neutral at all and fails in it's every attempt.
The new system neutralizes a previously biased system that has managed to become the most widespread in current use. We could create a new system, but really, there is little point. Yes, it is a western viewpoint. No, it is not the actual date of the birth of Christ. Yes, every calendar will have a bias.

Yes, the Chinese and Muslims and Jews and I'm sure plenty of other groups have their own calendars. However, guess which one is used for international commerce and politics? It is the "Calendar Franca" if you will...the system used widely beyond the natives of countries where it is the primary system.

it is easier to change a couple letters that are only used in specific contexts than to change (and have to 'translate') dates that are in common popular usage.

Obviously it would be far too complicated to actually change the date of year zero, all I am saying is that using CE is not really secular.

Obviously it would be far too complicated to actually change the date of year zero, all I am saying is that using CE is not really secular.

would you also agree that thursday isn't really secular either?

would you also agree that thursday isn't really secular either?

I should say not. Thor's Day? Hmph!

I don't give a shit.

That makes two of us.

People who get offended over petty things like this should be ignored. Giving them attention only makes them feel justified.

People who get offended over petty things like this should be ignored. Giving them attention only makes them feel justified.

That's the answer I was hoping for! Thank you Philosopy!! I'll bake a cake in your honor!!!

That's the answer I was hoping for! Thank you Philosopy!! I'll bake a cake in your honor!!!

Cake is good. :)

What a pointless idea.

Please don't change the names of units. If you come up with another unit that is better for some purpose then you can name that unit but changing the name of an existing unit does not improve anything. The existing unit will not become more useful with a different name. Change that does not improve things is a pure waste of time and effort.

The names Before Christ and Anno Domini are clear in that that they refer to before and after the birth of Christ. The names Before Common Era and Common Era do not clarify which era they refer to, only that it is a common one.

Referring to a calendar as the Common Era is unfair against other calendars, the Christian calendar is not superior and it's arrogant to assume that it is the common one that everyone should use.

would you also agree that thursday isn't really secular either?

Well, the name certainly isn't and neither are most days of the week. Even the seven-day week isn't secular. No one seems to be bothered by that though, except the French revolutionaries.

Well, the name certainly isn't and neither are most days of the week. Even the seven-day week isn't secular. No one seems to be bothered by that though, except the French revolutionaries.

Vive la semaine de dix jours!!! :D

Yes, I am offended that our time counting is based on the cult of a traitorous zombie Jew.

Well, the name certainly isn't and neither are most days of the week. Even the seven-day week isn't secular. No one seems to be bothered by that though, except the French revolutionaries.

so the origin of something determines its nature for all time? even after people stop particularly caring about the origin?

Before I begin, may I say I am not a Christian, never have, never will be. I am an avowed atheist and on a bad day slightly agnostic. When drunk, I'm a pantheist. But I'm never, ever a Christian.

1. I like A.D. because it allows me to embrace my love of Latin.

2. B.C.E.? Having to write MORE letters?

Now, on to a more serious point:

3. The ONLY thing dividing the "Common Era" from the time before is the supposed birth of Christ +/- 6 years (NOT 30 as others have said)

For the BC/AD and BCE/CE are the dates the same?
As in, is it 2008 AD as well as 2008 CE?

If so, who the hell cares?

For the BC/AD and BCE/CE are the dates the same?
As in, is it 2008 AD as well as 2008 CE?

If so, who the hell cares?

yes, yes, and apparently some people, respectively.

Um...no. Most people are NOT christian. Christians make up, iirc, around 30% of the world population. They are the largest group, but not a majority.
Additionally, traditions change. The majority of scholarly work, especially that of history and anthropology, use CE and BCE now.


CE and BCE are more accurate anyway, considering Christ was born somewhere around year 30 CE

"Somewhere?" Very scientific. Nobody knows when He was born. Nobody started Year One when it happened. A couple hundred years afterward, when Christianity began to assert itself, Church officials decided to standardize based on what they knew was the year or Christ's birth in the Jewish calendar (Christ was a Jew, after all -- but then, when was the Jewish calendar's Year One? Anyone here a Jewish scholar?), and then called that the Year of Our Lord, and numbered them sequentially until their time. It's all just about as arbitrary as time really is anyway.

Long story short, except for math with regard to things historical and the like, I really don't give a shit, either. For some things, age is important, but not for enough to get offended over something this trivial.

People who get offended over petty things like this should be ignored. Giving them attention only makes them feel justified.

Amen.

BC/AD!

To hell with political correctness' BCE/CE crap. I might not be OMG Jesus religious but BC/AD is fine with me.

Personally, I'd favor changing the dating system to Pre-Revolution and Post-Revolution and adopting a new calendar that places the beginning of year 1 Post-Revolution as July 4th, 1776 in the current calendar (this calendar would have new months named after great Americans). However, due to America's rejection of the Enlightenment values it was founded upon, this is not a realistic option.

As for using BC/AD or BCE/CE, I don't truly care which one is used. BCE/CE originated among moderate Christians and are not part of some grand Secularist conspiracy to eliminate the connection to Christianity. Most historians who accept that there was a historical Jesus (and there are many who don't) actually place his birth in 5 BC, not in 1 BC or AD 1 (there is no year 0). I don't understand why certain sects of Christianity have to whine so much about the dating system.

Meh, I don't much care whether people refer to dates as BCE/CE or BC/AD. It's obvious what is meant in either case and I don't find that the use of BC/AD offends my atheist sensibilities at all. In fact, I find that I rarely notice which one of the two systems are being used - I just seem to read/hear the phrases and know what they mean, in the same way as I seem to be able to handle thinking about distances in either kilometres or miles, or centimetres and inches, etc. It seems to be a pretty petty thing for anyone to get all riled about.

Now, if we could all just agree to use a 24 hour clock and record times and dates in YYYY/MM/DD/HH/Mn/SS format, I'd be a happy bunny :)

Now, on to a more serious point:

3. The ONLY thing dividing the "Common Era" from the time before is the supposed birth of Christ +/- 6 years (NOT 30 as others have said)

the only thing separating the common era from the time before is that the common calendar would have to use negative numbers to talk about them. jesus' birth (if there was such an individual) is irrelevant to the issue. it is irrelevant in exactly the same way that thor is irrelevant to what i do on thursdays.

and isn't +/- 6 years anyway; the only sources we have for it say that it is both specifically before and after that date. the dates given are contradictory and irreconcilable.

Cake is good. :)

The cake is a lie!

The cake is a lie!

This is one of the common misconceptions I hate.

the only thing separating the common era from the time before is that the common calendar would have to use negative numbers to talk about them. jesus' birth (if there was such an individual) is irrelevant to the issue. it is irrelevant in exactly the same way that thor is irrelevant to what i do on thursdays.

and isn't +/- 6 years anyway; the only sources we have for it say that it is both specifically before and after that date. the dates given are contradictory and irreconcilable.

It is believed that the calculation was off by 6 years. I didn't spend half my life in a Catholic school-cum-prison not to know that. And it is highly relevant as unlike Thor, a theological notion had to do with the placement of the years.

Oh, by the way, my overlord Thor is HIGHLY relevant to my Thursdays
and the derivation of Thursday has NOTHING TO DO WITH THOR.

Thursday is from Thunresdæg, was the Old English for Day Of Thunder, as for those who spoke Latin it was Jovis dies, the day of Jupiter, who was usually associated with Thunder.

So, you should really ask, how important is Jupiter to my Thrusdays?
Cor vitæ dieique est would be my answer.
And if you don't speak Latin as well as I, may Thor help you.

This is one of the common misconceptions I hate.

Really? The cake is real? were you baked?

so the origin of something determines its nature for all time? even after people stop particularly caring about the origin?

Well it depends on what people know about it. Pretty much everyone knows that year zero is a close approximation of when Jesus was born. I expect that most people know that the seven day week comes from Genesis. But as for stuff like days of the week, I don't think a lot of people are aware of how they were named. To make year zero secula, you'd have to make people forget its origin and changing abbreviations won't do that.

Really? The cake is real? were you baked?

No, but it tasted like Companion Cube.

Well it depends on what people know about it. Pretty much everyone knows that year zero is a close approximation of when Jesus was born. I expect that most people know that the seven day week comes from Genesis. But as for stuff like days of the week, I don't think a lot of people are aware of how they were named. To make year zero secula, you'd have to make people forget its origin and changing abbreviations won't do that.

suppose that the schools and media systematically started explaining the origins of the names of the days of the week, and so it is common knowledge in another few years. would this then make thursdays non-secular?

btw, the cultural origin of the seven day week is much older than the book of genesis.

I don't really see the point in replacing BC with BCE and AD with CE. I suppose BC and AD have Christian connotation, but so what? Four of the seven days of the week have Norse religious connotation, and the last is named after a Roman deity. Not to mention January, March, April, etc.

Actually, the only time I can think BCE and CE would be preferrable to BC and AD is, ironically, when you're talking about Christ. It's a little confusing to say Jesus Christ was born four years before Christ. But even that isn't really mind-blowing.

BC and AD are still relevent in secular terms. The Western World changed dramatically with Christ, even if he was never really born or if he was just a loon.


I really dont care what people use, but I still use BC/AD because its habit. But again, because 500 AD is the same as 500 CE, it doesnt matter too much to me.

AC/DC [/end thread]

DAMN YOU!

Well, the name certainly isn't and neither are most days of the week. Even the seven-day week isn't secular. No one seems to be bothered by that though, except the French revolutionaries.

Woo, let's get a metric time system!

Meh, I already have to deal with a different dating system on a daily basis, using both the BC/AD BCE/CE doesn't make that much of a difference.

Referring to a calendar as the Common Era is unfair against other calendars, the Christian calendar is not superior and it's arrogant to assume that it is the common one that everyone should use.And if it is, in fact, the current common calendar?

"Somewhere?" Very scientific. Nobody knows when He was born. Nobody started Year One when it happened. A couple hundred years afterward, when Christianity began to assert itself, Church officials decided to standardize based on what they knew was the year or Christ's birth in the Jewish calendar (Christ was a Jew, after all -- but then, when was the Jewish calendar's Year One? Anyone here a Jewish scholar?), and then called that the Year of Our Lord, and numbered them sequentially until their time. It's all just about as arbitrary as time really is anyway.Your comment seems to support my point...we don't know that he was born at the exact start of year 1, so it is inaccurate. The exact date, then, becomes irrelevant.

As for the Jewish calendar...the year 1 is the year the world was created according to genesis.


Mind you, I don't particularly care, but I do choose to use BCE/CE

The use of "BCE/CE" is extremely offensive. I regularly white out the offensive usage from any text (that I own, of course) in which it appears.

It is indicative of politically correct stupidity and Christophobia, and is just one of many attempts to eliminate references to the Christian heritage of Western civilization, and eventually to undermine and destroy it.

The use of these offensive terms by academics is just more confirmation that some ideas are so stupid, you have to go to grad school to learn them.

Fortunately, society at large need not indulge the Christophobia of academics.

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg

Changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE makes as much sense as switching from diet coke to coke zero. Its the SAME THING! (sorry to offend any Coke lovers, but don't care about offending PC nuts) Our calendar system is based on the birth of Jesus Christ. Period. End of sentance. The sentance ends. Changing the name of the date will just be more confusing. And no, this is not a religious issue, it is a historical issue. Jesus existed, of that there can be no doubt. His influance on history is more than enough to warrant him such a place on our calendar. If it were Before Christ, Savior of Man (BCSM) and After the Holy Sacrifice of Our Beloved Savior (AHSOBS) then it would be religious, but as it stands it is no more religious than having America set its timeline to George Washington's birthday (BGW/ADGW). The only real solution to this mess would to go all Pol Pot crazy and start at zero, being the accepted birth of mankind, but wait, then we would offend the creationists who would want the whole thing to start 4,000 years ago. Damn.

Changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE makes as much sense as switching from diet coke to coke zero. Its the SAME THING! (sorry to offend any Coke lovers, but don't care about offending PC nuts)

Coke Zero uses the same/extremely similar fomula as regular coke just with artificial sweetener added. Diet Coke uses a completely different formula.

Coke Zero uses the same/extremely similar fomula as regular coke just with artificial sweetener added. Diet Coke uses a completely different formula.

Oh, I did not know that, but I'm sure you see my point. Also, regular Coke is nasty, but Diet Coke is delicious, doubly so with lime.

I like BC/AD. I like AC/DC better.

Oh, and for the record, all of the classical history lectures, seminars, and symposiums that I have attended state that Christ was born sometime before AD 1, and definitely NOT after. Considering the records of who was in power, I'm convinced, as per my roommate's dissertation on the subject, that Christ was born in a year between 12 BC and 6 BC, likely towards that latter. And he was born in Spring. Point is, Christmas as I celebrate it was chosen to replace the Latin holiday of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, but my Lord and Savior (I'm still a good Catholic) was born twixt the Vernal Equinox and the Summer Solstice.

The use of "BCE/CE" is extremely offensive. I regularly white out the offensive usage from any text (that I own, of course) in which it appears.

It is indicative of politically correct stupidity and Christophobia, and is just one of many attempts to eliminate references to the Christian heritage of Western civilization, and eventually to undermine and destroy it.

The use of these offensive terms by academics is just more confirmation that some ideas are so stupid, you have to go to grad school to learn them.

Fortunately, society at large need not indulge the Christophobia of academics.

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg

I now support BCE/CE.

I now support BCE/CE.
:p
I can understand why. "BCE/CE" seems to be a bit of political correctness carried to an extreme, not part of a worldwide war on Christianity.

Why can't we just go with "+" and "-"?

The use of CE/BCE has always confused me. Surely if you want to secularise the notation you would pick a non-religious date as year zero.

Im glad they dont ... converting is a pain in the ass.
plenty of idiots who write programming languages choose odd epoch dates that are hard as hell to convert to/from

Now, if we could all just agree to use a 24 hour clock and record times and dates in YYYY/MM/DD/HH/Mn/SS format, I'd be a happy bunny :)
WOHO NO! Try DD Mmm YYYY HH.MM

The use of "BCE/CE" is extremely offensive. I regularly white out the offensive usage from any text (that I own, of course) in which it appears.

It is indicative of politically correct stupidity and Christophobia, and is just one of many attempts to eliminate references to the Christian heritage of Western civilization, and eventually to undermine and destroy it.

The use of these offensive terms by academics is just more confirmation that some ideas are so stupid, you have to go to grad school to learn them.

Fortunately, society at large need not indulge the Christophobia of academics.

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg

Wow I thought it was a pretty useless change and did not much care one way or another ... but maybe I should support this

Wow I thought it was a pretty useless change and did not much care one way or another ... but maybe I should support this

I find my own opinion changing as well.

Also, what does the image have to do with the rest of his sentientphobic rant?

I find my own opinion changing as well.

Also, what does the image have to do with the rest of his sentientphobic rant?

A picture of A.D being used on a sign on the moon. Apparently where filthy atheist notation changers can't get their grubby hands on it.

I find my own opinion changing as well.

Also, what does the image have to do with the rest of his sentientphobic rant?

Haha me three. Oh, and the image is based on his mistaken idea that our evil commie-atheist conspiracy won't reach to the moon. Muahahhahaha!

A picture of A.D being used on a sign on the moon. Apparently where filthy atheist notation changers can't get their grubby hands on it.

I would imagine it would be quite the opposite to be honest. Where christianity has stifled creativity, the recent advances were brought on by secular scholarly pursuits.

Certainly, we wouldn't have reached the moon had it been up to the religious leaders of the world.

I would imagine it would be quite the opposite to be honest. Where christianity has stifled creativity, the recent advances were brought on by secular scholarly pursuits.

Certainly, we wouldn't have reached the moon had it been up to the religious leaders of the world.

I agree in principal I think the idea is however it got there the A. D. Notation is there I guess

I would imagine it would be quite the opposite to be honest. Where christianity has stifled creativity, the recent advances were brought on by secular scholarly pursuits.

Certainly, we wouldn't have reached the moon had it been up to the religious leaders of the world.

Well, you're preaching to the Church Choir here.

Well, you're preaching to the Church Choir here.

I know. I used to be of the opinion that it didn't matter either way. Now, however, I can see why it is in fact necessary.

Still, there's gotta be a better name than common era. That just reeks of arrogance more than AD does.

I know. I used to be of the opinion that it didn't matter either way. Now, however, I can see why it is in fact necessary.

Still, there's gotta be a better name than common era. That just reeks of arrogance more than AD does.

JK?
FU?

Or some random pairing of letters so people forever try to figure out what they mean?

A picture of A.D being used on a sign on the moon. Apparently where filthy atheist notation changers can't get their grubby hands on it.


Im now tempted to become an astronaught, fly to the moon, and etch out AD and write CE with a sharpie.

JK?
FU?

Or some random pairing of letters so people forever try to figure out what they mean?

how about:

Before Cats and After Darth (vader)?

edit: I just realized something else... BCAD or ADBC is wrong for another reason. It should be ABCD.

how about:

Before Cats and After Darth (vader)?

edit: I just realized something else... BCAD or ADBC is wrong for another reason. It should be ABCD.

Hrm..

Latin cares not for your complaints.

Hrm..

Latin cares not for your complaints.

Nor do I care for Latin. I dropped it as a course and it died.

Hrm, we may as well just start a new dating system from today. S'as good a date as any. Call this Year one, and have new year at the vernal equinox.

http://www.speedsportlife.com/photopost/data/1087/thumbs/meh.jpg

Hrm, we may as well just start a new dating system from today. S'as good a date as any. Call this Year one, and have new year at the vernal equinox.

BTDD and ATDD?

Meh.

BTDD and ATDD?

Easily abbreviated to 'before' and 'after' :)

If you get rid of BC/AD, what the hell does the dividing line between the two mean? It makes it even more arbitrary than it was before. It just seems kind of, I don't know, ethnocentric to deem Jesus' birth as the dividing line as opposed to the dozens of other major thinkers and religious leaders whose beliefs influence the world just as much.

Everything I do is in the CE, so the BC/AD--BCE/CE debate has an added layer of pointlessness to me. But as an undergrad, struggling to stay awake through my token classics course, I was as firmly in the BCE/CE camp as I'm ever going to be.

If you get rid of BC/AD, what the hell does the dividing line between the two mean?

that there were things that happened more than 2008 years before now?

Why can't we just go with "+" and "-"?

then we'd have to make a slightly more difficult edit of the dates on old roman coins

It is BC/AD and that is the way it has been and should remain regardless of what some PC thugs or those idiots who have keft winged ideals say.

Any way China still goes by its year which I believe is in around the 4000's and I think but am only about 25% sure that the Jews are still using their years which is in their 5000's

If we use BCE and CE how come we have determined what is the common era, it is merely another thing some small minded people have decided to pick on like calling the head of a committee a piece of furniture (chair) rather than chairman and chairwoman

I do hate having two left wings. Flying in circles sucks.

Since BCE and BC mean the exact same thing, and are just different names, what if the date were switched to something we KNEW that happened, and have the exact date for it.

An example would be the moon landing on July 10th, 1969.

The end of WWII could also be used, or the year 2000. 2000 seems the easiest to carry out.

Since BCE and BC mean the exact same thing, and are just different names, what if the date were switched to something we KNEW that happened, and have the exact date for it.

An example would be the moon landing on July 10th, 1969.

The end of WWII could also be used, or the year 2000. 2000 seems the easiest to carry out.

2000 also seems a bit pointless, seeing as it's only significance is 2000 years AD (which is the whole point) :p

Moon landings I could go with, but more probably Gagarin's first flight - seeing as that was the first time we left this world.

Who cares?

Who cares?

Quite a few people, by the looks of it. It's an interesting topic for conversation...or at least different.

2000 also seems a bit pointless, seeing as it's only significance is 2000 years AD (which is the whole point) :p

Moon landings I could go with, but more probably Gagarin's first flight - seeing as that was the first time we left this world.

Dogs would get the honor first, Laika was the first to leave. ;)

Christ was a Jew, after all -- but then, when was the Jewish calendar's Year One? Anyone here a Jewish scholar?

Well actually the 1st Jewish year started 5769 years ago. The Jewish year will change on October 1st consequently 5770

A few more calendar years for people who care:

Roman (Ab Urbe Condita) 2758 chageover Jan. 14
Babylonian (Nabonassar) 2754 changeover Apr. 21
Japanese 2665 changeover Jan.1
Indian (Saka) 1927 Changeover Mar 22 so Happy New Year for this weekend
Islamic (Hegira) 1426 Changeover May 7

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg

Cripes!

Why does Nixon's name have to be immortalised on the moon?

The use of BC/AD doesn't "offend" me in any way. After all, as has been said, we are still talking about exactly the same dating system, so the whole thing is actually somewhat hypocritical and just playing with semantics.

In "official" writing I do tend to use BCE/CE as this is the official convention, but personally I use BC/AD as it's more convieninent and more widely understood. Also it's easier to differentiate when skimming over a document (BC/AD clearly different, as opposed to only one letter)

Chalk up another 'who cares?'.

Chalk up another 'who cares?'.

Make that yet another one.

Since BCE and BC mean the exact same thing, and are just different names, what if the date were switched to something we KNEW that happened, and have the exact date for it.

An example would be the moon landing on July 10th, 1969.

The end of WWII could also be used, or the year 2000. 2000 seems the easiest to carry out.

Hm, 14 july 1789, storming of the Bastille in the French revolution? Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité! Off with their heads!

The use of "BCE/CE" is extremely offensive. I regularly white out the offensive usage from any text (that I own, of course) in which it appears.

It is indicative of politically correct stupidity and Christophobia, and is just one of many attempts to eliminate references to the Christian heritage of Western civilization, and eventually to undermine and destroy it.

The use of these offensive terms by academics is just more confirmation that some ideas are so stupid, you have to go to grad school to learn them.

Fortunately, society at large need not indulge the Christophobia of academics.

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg
Don't care, and I'm a History student, but I might just use it now out of spite.

Cripes!

Why does Nixon's name have to be immortalised on the moon?

I find it more amusing he thinks only Christians will ever set foot on the moon.

Don't care, and I'm a History student, but I might just use it now out of spite.

Wouldn't that just prove New Mitanni's point. I mean to use the BCE/CE because one christian said that he found it offensive you will now not use it.

Personally I don't see why people would start using this different form its not like anything is going to change me is use the BC/AD method one because that is what it is and he way it has been and 2 and this makes me as bad as yourself and other people like you because some bigots with left wing ideology (and that refers to the political thought not their religious thought) doesn't like it so yes I will do it out of spite.

Yes i am just as bad as what I say you are but hey I that's the type of guy I am I deliberately eat meat in front of vegetarians when they preach to me how bad it is and why I shouldn't do it

In "official" writing I do tend to use BCE/CE as this is the official convention

When did the UK make this the official convention?

Us archaeologists are divided.

I use BC / AD, but I know of many colleagues who use the BCE / CE convention. I'll admit that this strikes me as slightly silly since if the point is to avoid a religious-centric terminology, then to still centre the calendar on a event with religious implications, but then only change the name so as to make it sound as if it doesn't even though it still is is just gloss.

Then again, I'm Russian Orthodox, so I'm biased. Make of that what you will.

Some of my colleagues use 'BP', as in 'before present', since by definition anything an archaeologist looks at is in the past. This may seem the perfect compromise until you learn that, by international convention, 'present' is defined as 1950. Which presumably means that we're now living in 58 AP ('after present').

Maybe the answer is to move to North Korea, which is currently in Juche 97. Long live the struggle for self-reliance in the face of capitalist imperialist oppression! [yes, that was a joke, oh ye of little irony]

Us archaeologists are divided.

not to my knowledge - evidence?

Some of my colleagues use 'BP', as in 'before present', since by definition anything an archaeologist looks at is in the past. This may seem the perfect compromise until you learn that, by international convention, 'present' is defined as 1950. Which presumably means that we're now living in 58 AP ('after present').

of course, bp comes out of radiocarbon dating, and since carbon ratios haven't been exactly stable anyway, calibrated years bp are different than uncalibrated years bp.

The use of BC/AD doesn't "offend" me in any way. After all, as has been said, we are still talking about exactly the same dating system, so the whole thing is actually somewhat hypocritical and just playing with semantics.

hypocritical? how so? and how is it just playing with semantics to not make people say 'in the year of our lord' when referencing the commonly used dates?

CE/BCE represents a calendar system that can be worked with. AD/BC is problematic because the reference point (the birth of Yeshua) is in fact unknown.

Why does Nixon's name have to be immortalised on the moon?Because Nixon rules.

not to my knowledge - evidence?


I wonder if you perhaps accidentally read that as 'US archaeologists' rather than 'Us archaeologists'.

I suppose I could wave my PhD in archaeology around, post a link to the professional archaeology society of which I'm both a board member and the newsletter editor, and perhaps even cite my own publications to prove the point - but that all seems a little crass.

So in a public forum I'll stand by what I said; archaeologists - of which I am most definitely one - use both BC / AD and BCE / CE depending on the archaeologist.

And if I'm not providing specific publications beyond that, it's only because I'm bedridden with a bad injury following a spell in hospital and can't reach my library from where I'm lying.

I wonder if you perhaps accidentally read that as 'US archaeologists' rather than 'Us archaeologists'.

I suppose I could wave my PhD in archaeology around, post a link to the professional archaeology society of which I'm both a board member and the newsletter editor, and perhaps even cite my own publications to prove the point - but that all seems a little crass.

So in a public forum I'll stand by what I said; archaeologists - of which I am most definitely one - use both BC / AD and BCE / CE depending on the archaeologist.

And if I'm not providing specific publications beyond that, it's only because I'm bedridden with a bad injury following a spell in hospital and can't reach my library from where I'm lying.

i did actually read it that way. but more to the point, i seem to recall most of the important archaeological societies have moved to the ce/bce as what they officially use. i don't know the lit well enough to talk about it, but it basically has seemed to me that using ad/bc is getting to the point of being rather quaint and idiosyncratic in the professional realm.

i did actually read it that way. but more to the point, i seem to recall most of the important archaeological societies have moved to the ce/bce as what they officially use. i don't know the lit well enough to talk about it, but it basically has seemed to me that using ad/bc is getting to the point of being rather quaint and idiosyncratic in the professional realm.

Hmmm. Don't know about the quaint, but I have been accused of being idiosyncratic.

However, that said, I've done a little digging around (no pun intended) on-line, and have found the relevant section of my professional society's publication style guide. Without giving away the specific identity of said society in a public forum (TG me if you're desperately curious) we have over 2000 members, and we're easily the largest international society for the relevant period:

D. Dates, Years, and Eras

Dates

Use scientific or military style for all dates. "He was born on 19 July 1889." Actual quotations will retain their style.

Decades

Do not use apostrophes in decades (1860s and 1870s, not 1860's and '70's).

Inclusive Years
Fully cite inclusive years (1774-1778); do not shorten the century (1774-78). Always use from with to when referring to a range of dates (from 1850 to 1860); do not combine words and symbols (from 1850-1860).

Eras
B.C. follows dates (2000 B.C.); A.D. precedes dates (A.D. 2000). There is no year 0. Do not use C.E. (current era), B.P. (before present), or B.C.E.; convert these expressions to A.D. and B.C. (See below for use of B.P. in radiometric ages.) Abbreviate circa as ca. (ca. 1650).

Point adequately proven?

Wouldn't that just prove New Mitanni's point. I mean to use the BCE/CE because one christian said that he found it offensive you will now not use it.
New Mitanni's point? I don't think he really had one. It's just another generic 'evil PC Christianophobic liberals' rant. If he finds using CE/BCE offensive, it is his problem, not mine.

Personally I don't see why people would start using this different form its not like anything is going to change me is use the BC/AD method one because that is what it is and he way it has been and 2 and this makes me as bad as yourself and other people like you because some bigots with left wing ideology (and that refers to the political thought not their religious thought) doesn't like it so yes I will do it out of spite.
You're perfectly free to. You see, I couldn't give a toss whether people use CE/BCE or AD/BC. I tend to use them interchangeably, depending usually on what my tutor uses. However, I do give a toss when someone tries to use it as proof of some sort of conspiracy against hte so-called Christian heritage of western civilisation, as if using CE/BCE would somehow cause us to regress to the stone age. It's irritating.

Yes i am just as bad as what I say you are but hey I that's the type of guy I am I deliberately eat meat in front of vegetarians when they preach to me how bad it is and why I shouldn't do it
If a veggie were to lecture me about how eating meat is wrong, and told me not to eat meat in front of them, I probably would make a point of it, yes. I'll eat meat when I damn well like, just like I'll use the terminology I damn well like.

Because Nixon rules.

Aroo.

CE/BCE represents a calendar system that can be worked with. AD/BC is problematic because the reference point (the birth of Yeshua) is in fact unknown.

Or not...

Common Era (also known as Christian Era and Current Era...The numbering of years is identical to the numbering in the Anno Domini system...The only difference between Common Era, Christian Era, and Anno Domini notation is in the names themselves.

The Gregorian calendar is the calendar system with most widespread usage in the world today. For decades, it has been the unofficial global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union.

I win. /thread.

RhynoDD;13534281']Aroo.



Or not...



I win. /thread.Very funny. AD 2008 is not 2008 years after the birth of Yeshua. AD is not at all what its meaning suggests.

Very funny. AD 2008 is not 2008 years after the birth of Yeshua. AD is not at all what its meaning suggests.

Congratulations. You have missed my point entirely (http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/categories/images/blog/lolcat.jpg).

Wouldn't that just prove New Mitanni's point. I mean to use the BCE/CE because one christian said that he found it offensive you will now not use it.

Personally I don't see why people would start using this different form its not like anything is going to change me is use the BC/AD method one because that is what it is and he way it has been and 2 and this makes me as bad as yourself and other people like you because some bigots with left wing ideology (and that refers to the political thought not their religious thought) doesn't like it so yes I will do it out of spite.

Yes i am just as bad as what I say you are but hey I that's the type of guy I am I deliberately eat meat in front of vegetarians when they preach to me how bad it is and why I shouldn't do it

Holy lack-of-punctuation, Batman!

Holy lack-of-punctuation, Batman!

Epic win.

Im now tempted to become an astronaught, fly to the moon, and etch out AD and write CE with a sharpie.

Astronaught = black hole?

Point adequately proven?

fair enough

I'm a big believer in 'if it's not broke, don't fix it.' Either way though, it's not really something I'm going to lose sleep over. If I got pissy over some academic doing something stupid, I'd have no time to do anything else.

Oh, I did not know that, but I'm sure you see my point. Also, regular Coke is nasty, but Diet Coke is delicious, doubly so with lime.

Blasphemy!

Anyway, I'm going to agree with New Mitanni in that I hate the BCE/CE system. It's stupid and I refuse to use it.

And now that you're getting ready to (and probably rightfully so from the sound of my statement) claim that I'm claiming Christians are being oppressed. True, I am a Christian. But we're not, and this has nothing to do with it.

It's just... BCE? Wow. Talk about ungracefully falling off the tongue, y'know? I mean, BC has a nice little rhythm to it, and then E just sorta clunks off the end. Sort of like that annoying kid that hung out with you in High school. You didn't know him, you didn't care because he was obnoxious. But you tolerated him to he stuck around like a bad rash.

Don't worry though, CE. You're cool. Your brother just has a nasty rash to take care of before he can join the party.

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg

it is true, the moon does have a strict religious test for landing on it. this is why, for example, tom hanks was not allowed to go there.

I'm a big believer in 'if it's not broke, don't fix it.' Either way though, it's not really something I'm going to lose sleep over. If I got pissy over some academic doing something stupid, I'd have no time to do anything else.

Interestingly, if you stick to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", you generally will end up with something that either a) breaks later or b) doesn't work to full potential (often leading to an eventual failure) or c) becomes obsolete, be it a physical object, business, writing, or whatever else you may apply it to.

have other religons stopped using their dating system? why should christ followers be the only ones to change? i'll switch to bce/ce when EVERYONE else dose and not before. i'm tired of my beliefs being the only ones under fire for being exclusionary. all belief systems exclude those that don't think like the tenits say they should.

have other religons stopped using their dating system? why should christ followers be the only ones to change? i'll switch to bce/ce when EVERYONE else dose and not before. i'm tired of my beliefs being the only ones under fire for being exclusionary. all belief systems exclude those that don't think like the tenits say they should.

Because it is the Western calendar that is used for international trade, government, and business...not the others. As I said before, it is the Calendar Franca of sorts. It is the only calendar widely used globally, not just by those born in countries that use it (IE, China, the Muslim world). The persecution complex is adorable, but not accurate nor earned. Though, I guess if it is earned, then it isn't a complex...

It isn't even as if the Western calendar is accurately based off Christ, as he a) wasn't likely born in the year 1 and b) wasn't born on the date of the new year.

The use of "BCE/CE" is extremely offensive. I regularly white out the offensive usage from any text (that I own, of course) in which it appears.

It is indicative of politically correct stupidity and Christophobia, and is just one of many attempts to eliminate references to the Christian heritage of Western civilization, and eventually to undermine and destroy it.

The use of these offensive terms by academics is just more confirmation that some ideas are so stupid, you have to go to grad school to learn them.

Fortunately, society at large need not indulge the Christophobia of academics.

And there's at least one place where the Christophobes won't be able to reach:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Apollo11Plaque.jpg

Does anyone have that pie chart showing the breakdown of religions in the U.S, which shows Christians looking like a giant pacman, with the caption of the pacman saying "Help! we're being oppressed!"

it would probably be appropriate given posts like these. Along with a quote from Neil Armstrong:
"We live in an age where man has walked on the moon. And it wasn't no miracle; we just decided to go."

Does anyone have that pie chart showing the breakdown of religions in the U.S, which shows Christians looking like a giant pacman, with the caption of the pacman saying "Help! we're being oppressed!"

it would probably be appropriate given posts like these. Along with a quote from Neil Armstrong:
"We live in an age where man has walked on the moon. And it wasn't no miracle; we just decided to go."

Can't find the animated one, but this is good enough
http://intellectualize.org/images/help_oppressed.gif

I think that the people who are the most upset about this really need to get a hobby. This is just a sad leftover from the PC crusade of the early 90s, and while I have no real problem with people referring to times a long time ago as BCE and times less long ago as CE, the outcry that they are raising about other people following their stupid little system is laughable, and sad at the same time because of its effectiveness.

It's not possible to get rid of all remnants of religious symbols or terms from our daily lives, so just give it a rest already. :rolleyes:

Because it is the Western calendar that is used for international trade, government, and business...not the others. As I said before, it is the Calendar Franca of sorts. It is the only calendar widely used globally, not just by those born in countries that use it (IE, China, the Muslim world). The persecution complex is adorable, but not accurate nor earned. Though, I guess if it is earned, then it isn't a complex...

It isn't even as if the Western calendar is accurately based off Christ, as he a) wasn't likely born in the year 1 and b) wasn't born on the date of the new year.

Oh really? What does accuracy have to do with it? Actual date or not, it's still Christ-centric.

That said, I still don't give a rip. I'm used to BC/AD, I'll continue to use it.

Interestingly, if you stick to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", you generally will end up with something that either a) breaks later or b) doesn't work to full potential (often leading to an eventual failure) or c) becomes obsolete, be it a physical object, business, writing, or whatever else you may apply it to.

Of course, you have use a bit of common sense in applying that principle and not carry it to absurd extremes. Although I have found common sense to be fairly scarce in academia, or, really, in everyday life.

(I hope there is no problem referring to another board here.) There's an argument going on in the IMDB Boards about the merits of BCE and CE over BC and AD for dates. (linky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/board/nest/89448581))



I've seen both used and understand what someone is saying when they use any one of them. My question is this: Does anyone here actually get offended if someone says, for example, 541 BC instead of 541 BCE? Or vice versa?

That sucks. I always liked using BC and AD when giving dates. Those 2 terms always had a certain flair, an elegance to them. BCE and CE are too... I don't know... common.:(

that there were things that happened more than 2008 years before now?

But then there would be no need for CE. BCE would be more than enough.

Oh really? What does accuracy have to do with it? Actual date or not, it's still Christ-centric.

That said, I still don't give a rip. I'm used to BC/AD, I'll continue to use it.

Hence why I said it isn't accuratly, not that it isn't at all...

And I don't particularly care either. I use CE/BCE because I like how they look and that is how I was trained.

Of course, you have use a bit of common sense in applying that principle and not carry it to absurd extremes. Although I have found common sense to be fairly scarce in academia, or, really, in everyday life.

So is it really that common?

BC/AD. Firstly because it is the matrix I've always been taught with, and read, and secondly because such things inevitably vex militantly left-wing historians.

Enough is enough.
I shall end this now.

We shall all use AUC, ab urbe condita, as our measure of years.
It measure dates from 753, the founding of Rome.

There are no dates before that because all things before Rome are unimportant and irrelevant.

Except for Homer, Aeneas and Ulysees. But it's likely they never lived, so the point is moot.

Enough is enough.
I shall end this now.

We shall all use AUC, ab urbe condita, as our measure of years.
It measure dates from 753, the founding of Rome.

There are no dates before that because all things before Rome are unimportant and irrelevant.

Except for Homer, Aeneas and Ulysees. But it's likely they never lived, so the point is moot.

Actually, if Homer is simply considered as a figure who penned the oral tales of the "Iliad" and "Odyssey", it is more than likely he existed. It is improbable any single figure conceived the story, given the prevalence of the oral tradition, however, it is probable that single figure did pen them.

BC/AD. Firstly because it is the matrix I've always been taught with, and read, and secondly because such things inevitably vex militantly left-wing historians.

Really, well I've met a fair few left-wing historians, and they remain agreeably unvexed. *shrug*

It is of course doubtful that Homer conceived the entire tales and wrote them, his supposed blindness being a major problem in any ancient writing exercise.

It is likely that he did live, but the point is that they were not his stories. And, being before Romulus founded the great city on the Tiber, he is by default unimportant.

Really, well I've met a fair few left-wing historians, and they remain agreeably unvexed. *shrug*

Meh. The one's I've had thus far at university tend to object to anything with even a mite of tradition.

Meh. The one's I've had thus far at university tend to object to anything with even a mite of tradition.

Thus and mite are too traditional and I find the use of such words offensive.
Apologize or you will be ostracized.

Enough is enough.
I shall end this now.

We shall all use AUC, ab urbe condita, as our measure of years.
It measure dates from 753, the founding of Rome.

There are no dates before that because all things before Rome are unimportant and irrelevant.

Except for Homer, Aeneas and Ulysees. But it's likely they never lived, so the point is moot.

Hear Hear, the year is 2758 AUC this is what we should all go on from now on.

Of course the question now becomes do we stay with our 12 months or do we go back to the original 10 i.e. before the time of Augustus

Meh. The one's I've had thus far at university tend to object to anything with even a mite of tradition.

Well, you get all sorts, I suppose. Myself, I find any dating system with a resolution of less than 100,000 years to be needlessly precise.

Hear Hear, the year is 2758 AUC this is what we should all go on from now on.

Of course the question now becomes do we stay with our 12 months or do we go back to the original 10 i.e. before the time of Augustus

Well, we'll stick with the 12 because we don't want any radical changes.
Usually, people who screw with the months get killed (i.e. French Revolution)
People who screw with the years get Nobel Prizes for Science

Well, you get all sorts, I suppose. Myself, I find any dating system with a resolution of less than 100,000 years to be needlessly precise.

Geologist?

The use of CE/BCE has always confused me. Surely if you want to secularise the notation you would pick a non-religious date as year zero.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

The use of BC/AD doesn't "offend" me in any way. After all, as has been said, we are still talking about exactly the same dating system, so the whole thing is actually somewhat hypocritical and just playing with semantics.

Hey! I'm always up for some antics!!!

Seriously, though. I didn't think this thread would go beyond 5 or 6 posts, let alone almost 150! Woohoo!!!

Actually, if Homer is simply considered as a figure who penned the oral tales of the "Iliad" and "Odyssey", it is more than likely he existed. It is improbable any single figure conceived the story, given the prevalence of the oral tradition, however, it is probable that single figure did pen them.
Dumb question, if I may. How exactly does one "pen" an "oral tale?" ;)

personally i prefer "Before Present".

before current era is just a more euphamistic form of just as baseless a chauvanism for the currently dominant (bc/ad) calandar of the currently dominant culture.

=^^=
.../\...

Geologist?

Its the beard, isn't it. Always gives me away...

I like BC/AD. Seems so retro. BCE/CE reminds me too much of killer robots and scientists doing stupid sciency stuff that doesn't really make sense and ends up killing everybody. And stupid movie plots. How the hell is an intelligent shark going to help us cure cancer? How?

BCE/CE supports evil killer hip hop robots and country music, the most evil music to crawl out of the deepest regions of hell. Oppose BCE/CE. Support BC/AD today. Tomorrow, we'll work on the AC/DC calendar. Every third Tuesday, it shocks you with alternating current and every Friday, it shocks you with direct current. Just like the band.

personally i prefer "Before Present".
Everything is 'Before Present'. You can't have a constantly moving 'year zero'.

Of course the question now becomes do we stay with our 12 months or do we go back to the original 10 i.e. before the time of Augustus

I must have missed that post somewhere along the line. It's inaccurate.

(puts archaeology PhD academic hat on)

I think you're slightly confused about the nature of the Roman calendar, and have possibly conflated several separate Roman calendrical reforms.

The very first, possibly legendary, Roman calendar did indeed consist of 10 months:
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)
[edit: forgot to note in the original post that this calendar is also said to have included 61 'extra-calendrical' days each winter that were part of the year, but not assigned to any month]

However, this was said to have been reformed as early as 713BC (by the second, again possibly legendary, King of Rome) into:
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (29 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (29 days)
Quintilis (31 days)
Sextilis (29 days)
September (29 days)
October (31 days)
November (29 days)
December (29 days)
Ianuarius (29 days)
Februarius (28 days)
with a 'Mensis Intercalaris' (or 'Mercedonius') occasionally added after Februarius

Julius Caesar then comes up with well-known reforms of the Julian Calendar in 45 BC / 709 ABC by adding two extra days to Ianuarius, Sextilis and December, and one extra day to Aprilis, Iunius, September and November. These are the lengths of month we're familiar with today (except as regards the later Gregorian reforms relating to February and leap years).

The only influence Augustus has on this is the re-naming of two months - Quintilis and Sextilis - to 'July' and 'August', not, as implied in the original quote, the addition of two months.

The two extra months had been added some 700 years before Augustus, and were January and February, not July and August.

(takes archaeology PhD academic hat off)

Everything is 'Before Present'. You can't have a constantly moving 'year zero'.

Go several pages back in this thread. 'Before Present' is a recognised term in archaeology, particularly for radiocarbon dating. I think geologists use it too, thought I'm not prepared to speak for them.

As noted in a previous post, 'the present' is, by international convention, set as 1950. At present, the 50 year discrepancy is academic (extremely weak pun fully intended) since anyone using BP is likely to be measuring in thousands of years at least, and possibly even on a geological scale, rendering a gap of 50 years irrelevant.

Go several pages back in this thread. 'Before Present' is a recognised term in archaeology, particularly for radiocarbon dating. I think geologists use it too, thought I'm not prepared to speak for them.
Fair enough.

As noted in a previous post, 'the present' is, by international convention, set as 1950. At present, the 50 year discrepancy is academic (extremely weak pun fully intended) since anyone using BP is likely to be measuring in thousands of years at least, and possibly even on a geological scale, rendering a gap of 50 years irrelevant.
So, if I'm following you correctly, using this system would mean starting again at the year 0?

Wouldn't having two entirely separate dates be a lot more confusing that two different ways of referring to the same date?

Hebrew calendar FTW.

Not only is it now the year 5768 (w00t! Space tech!) but it:

a) Eliminates the birth of Jesus as the basis for the calendar, and
b) Since the year 3761 BC (if I did the math right, accounting for the lack of a year 0 in the Gregorian calendar and working backwards) is prehistoric, it isn't the year of birth of some other religious figure. It may have a basis somewhere in Judaism, but few Jews believe in creationism and even fewer believe the earth is only 5,768 years old.

Sure, you might have to get used to celebrating New Year's in the fall, and learning the names of the Hebrew months and days of the year, but isn't it worth it to not have a calendar based on the birth of Jesus?

AC/DC [/end thread]

I'm not really bothered with what people use to be fair.

That's what we use here in Italy.
AC=Avanti Cristo (before Christ)
DC=Dopo Cristo (after Christ)


To be accurate, we should call this year the year 2008 of the Gregorian Reckoning.

Or annus MMDCCLXI ab Urbe condita (with the beginning of the year being at the Kalendae of March). No more references to religions whatsoever.

etc etc etc...

Hebrew calendar FTW.

Not only is it now the year 5768 (w00t! Space tech!) but it:

a) Eliminates the birth of Jesus as the basis for the calendar, and
b) Since the year 3761 BC (if I did the math right, accounting for the lack of a year 0 in the Gregorian calendar and working backwards) is prehistoric, it isn't the year of birth of some other religious figure. It may have a basis somewhere in Judaism, but few Jews believe in creationism and even fewer believe the earth is only 5,768 years old.Fuck Judaism.

The very first, possibly legendary, Roman calendar did indeed consist of 10 months:
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)

I'm sorry but this is too silly. Are we really supposed to believe the ancient Romans separated their year into...*calculates*...304 days?

A single year would show that to be a pointless means of measuring a year like this. The Ancient Greeks had a 12 month calendar of sorts as did previous civilizations.

I'm guessing this has been made up somewhere along the line and I bet the real reason for the discrepancy between October and 8 is that they changed the year to start in a pre-existing January rather than starting in March - as in the dead of winter rather than the start of Spring.

In fact, looking through research as I write this, it seems there is some dispute and the 10 month year is put forward by Roman historians because some feast wasn't held in January and February - there's fair room for speculation though but, to me, it just doesn't make sense that there were simply 2 unnamed months.

EDIT: Although, having thought about it, pre-Roman Europe west of Greece may have been inclinced to hibernate in deep winter - the old idea of a large feast on the 25th December may have been a prelude to essentially sleeping through 2 months - I remember reading something about studies on ancient France where humans were believed to have hibernated.

Interesting all up, never really thought about it before - just assumed a lunar schedule.

Go several pages back in this thread. 'Before Present' is a recognised term in archaeology, particularly for radiocarbon dating. I think geologists use it too, thought I'm not prepared to speak for them.

As noted in a previous post, 'the present' is, by international convention, set as 1950. At present, the 50 year discrepancy is academic (extremely weak pun fully intended) since anyone using BP is likely to be measuring in thousands of years at least, and possibly even on a geological scale, rendering a gap of 50 years irrelevant.
We do indeed use 'before present'. Not in those words mind. Geologists usually just say 60Ma for 60 million years ago, or 600ka for 600 000 years ago. Any geological activity in recent times (such as a volcanic eruption in recorded history) would be done BC/AD or BCE/CE, depending on whether the author gives two hoots.
Fuck Judaism.
You've managed to condense the vast majority of your posts into two words. Very efficient.

Actually, most people are Christian. More people on the earth are Christian than anything else.


Besides, its scholarly tradition. Frankly, getting all hot and bothered over it is just a waste.

Christians maybe IS the most largest group in the world, but it is not a majority if confronted with an united front of Non-Christians...

Doesn't matter, couldn't care less.

Changing the letters and what they stand for doesn't change the fact that the arbitrary reference point is Jesus Christ.

No point in sniveling and trying to disguise it behind different terms.

Sort of like the sniveling, inconsequential noisemakers who insist of typing "USian" instead of "American" when they're talking about Americans.

I'm sorry but this is too silly. Are we really supposed to believe the ancient Romans separated their year into...*calculates*...304 days?

A single year would show that to be a pointless means of measuring a year like this. The Ancient Greeks had a 12 month calendar of sorts as did previous civilizations.

I'm guessing this has been made up somewhere along the line and I bet the real reason for the discrepancy between October and 8 is that they changed the year to start in a pre-existing January rather than starting in March - as in the dead of winter rather than the start of Spring.

In fact, looking through research as I write this, it seems there is some dispute and the 10 month year is put forward by Roman historians because some feast wasn't held in January and February - there's fair room for speculation though but, to me, it just doesn't make sense that there were simply 2 unnamed months.

EDIT: Although, having thought about it, pre-Roman Europe west of Greece may have been inclinced to hibernate in deep winter - the old idea of a large feast on the 25th December may have been a prelude to essentially sleeping through 2 months - I remember reading something about studies on ancient France where humans were believed to have hibernated.

Interesting all up, never really thought about it before - just assumed a lunar schedule.


You'll notice the crucial words in the first section of my original post on the development of the Roman calendar: 'possibly legendary'. I also neglected to add the 61 days of winter that weren't included in the calendar proper (to which you obliquely refer above), making a calendar of 304 days proper, plus 61 extra-calendrical days. My fault for not being clearer on the latter point (and I've now added an edit to the post in question).

BUT - and this is a big but - the origins of the first two calendars under discussion, the Romulan (no, Star Trek fans, that doesn't mean what you think it does) and Pompilian, are shrouded in legend. The first calendar (the one with the 61 'extra' days) was said to have been developed by Romulus and then replaced by second king Numa Pompilius, both of whom are usually held to be entirely legendary figures. The occasional attempt is made to turn Numa into a historical figure, but the first Roman king generally acknowledged as a real historical figure is Tullus Hostilius, the third king - and even there most of the events associated with Tullus are clearly non-historical. Only the 'Cura Hostilia' - the original Senate house - hints at a real place or event directly associated with Tullus.

This obviously raises into question the precise historical nature of the Romulan calendars I cited above. The Pompilian calendar certainly existed, as it was it calendar reformed by Julius Caesar. The question of who designed the Pompilian calendar, and what - if anything - preceded it, and therefore whether the Romulan calendar ever existed, should be considered more open.

Apologies for not making this clearer originally - but it looks like that by the time you'd had the time to consider the broader issues, you came to the realisation that the systems involved weren't quite as odd as they may have initially appeared.

I've seen both used and understand what someone is saying when they use any one of them. My question is this: Does anyone here actually get offended if someone says, for example, 541 BC instead of 541 BCE? Or vice versa?
I'm not "offended" by people using BC, I simply think they are in error. BCE is the accepted notation (at least where I am). Saying "BC" is basically just like using incorrect grammar or spelling.

I must have missed that post somewhere along the line. It's inaccurate.

(puts archaeology PhD academic hat on)

I think you're slightly confused about the nature of the Roman calendar, and have possibly conflated several separate Roman calendrical reforms.

The very first, possibly legendary, Roman calendar did indeed consist of 10 months:
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)
[edit: forgot to note in the original post that this calendar is also said to have included 61 'extra-calendrical' days each winter that were part of the year, but not assigned to any month]

However, this was said to have been reformed as early as 713BC (by the second, again possibly legendary, King of Rome) into:
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (29 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (29 days)
Quintilis (31 days)
Sextilis (29 days)
September (29 days)
October (31 days)
November (29 days)
December (29 days)
Ianuarius (29 days)
Februarius (28 days)
with a 'Mensis Intercalaris' (or 'Mercedonius') occasionally added after Februarius

Julius Caesar then comes up with well-known reforms of the Julian Calendar in 45 BC / 709 ABC by adding two extra days to Ianuarius, Sextilis and December, and one extra day to Aprilis, Iunius, September and November. These are the lengths of month we're familiar with today (except as regards the later Gregorian reforms relating to February and leap years).

The only influence Augustus has on this is the re-naming of two months - Quintilis and Sextilis - to 'July' and 'August', not, as implied in the original quote, the addition of two months.

The two extra months had been added some 700 years before Augustus, and were January and February, not July and August.

(takes archaeology PhD academic hat off)

Ok it seems facts had gotten mixed up a bit when relayed to me, I knew that Augustus named August after himself and that there was originally 10 months as the first list shows. But I always thought that's because he added it "the more you know"

A few questions

1) Now I knew Julius Caesar had changed the calender hence the name Julian calender (I hope), but didn't he add Ianuaris at the start of the year naming it after Janus the god with two faces and placed on many gates to cities so you could look forward and back at the same time and thus it became the beginning so people could look at the year just gone and look forward into the coming year? After all isn't that why the months such as December (dec-10) November (Novo-11) et.al. were pushed back and now have the numbers moved out of sync.

2) Weren't earlier calenders and this may not apply to Roman calenders but definitely to others based on a 28 day cycle that cycle being the moon, hence the name month which is derived from moonth?

And lastly and not to divert the thread onto another topic but I do have a strong interest in Ancient Rome amongst other civilizations and history, but while it is acknowledged that Romulus and Numa Pompilius are two rulers shrouded in mystery do you as an archaeologist believe that there is some truth to the rumors after all, all myths have some basis of fact amongst them? and also is there any evidence to suggest of the first two kings were real people after all Romulus is said to have founded Rome in 753 BC and Tullus Hostilius began his reign in 673 BC that is quite a long time.

Ok it seems facts had gotten mixed up a bit when relayed to me, I knew that Augustus named August after himself and that there was originally 10 months as the first list shows. But I always thought that's because he added it "the more you know"

A few questions

1) Now I knew Julius Caesar had changed the calender hence the name Julian calender (I hope), but didn't he add Ianuaris at the start of the year naming it after Janus the god with two faces and placed on many gates to cities so you could look forward and back at the same time and thus it became the beginning so people could look at the year just gone and look forward into the coming year? After all isn't that why the months such as December (dec-10) November (Novo-11) et.al. were pushed back and now have the numbers moved out of sync.

2) Weren't earlier calenders and this may not apply to Roman calenders but definitely to others based on a 28 day cycle that cycle being the moon, hence the name month which is derived from moonth?

And lastly and not to divert the thread onto another topic but I do have a strong interest in Ancient Rome amongst other civilizations and history, but while it is acknowledged that Romulus and Numa Pompilius are two rulers shrouded in mystery do you as an archaeologist believe that there is some truth to the rumors after all, all myths have some basis of fact amongst them? and also is there any evidence to suggest of the first two kings were real people after all Romulus is said to have founded Rome in 753 BC and Tullus Hostilius began his reign in 673 BC that is quite a long time.

1) March was the original Roman first month of the year, and subsequently became so again in medieval Europe. January was made the first month of the year in, I think, 153 BC (well before Julius Caesar). This had something to do with the timing of consular elections, though I forget the precise details. March subsequently reverted to being considered the first month of the year after the Roman Empire until about the 16th century (I think; again, I'm not quite as clear on the details).

While January is named after Janus, the association between his month and the two-headed nature of the god may have developed after January being made the first month of the year, rather than the first month of the year being intentionally named after Janus.

January was also present in the Pompilian calendar, so wasn't a Julian reform addition.

2) Many calendars are at least partially lunar in nature, including the Jewish and Islamic calendars. This is why, for example. Ramadan slides through the Western year. The Pompilian calendar was supposed to be an attempt to reconcile lunar and solar years, though this has to be considered legendary; it may well simply have been a flawed calendar for which subsequent justifications were developed.

Lunar calendars have their benefits, and half of our species is deeply impacted by the 28 day cycle. Solar calendars didn't necessarily win in the end because of any inherent superiority.

The basic difference is that a lunar calendar is simple to calculate, but will have the months slide through different seasons over time, while a solar calendar is trickier to calculate but will coordinate the months and the seasons. It's a matter of preference.

3) The early kings of Rome.... The best argument in favour of their legendary nature is their unfeasibly long reigns -something like an average of 35 years or more each in a period of more turbulent politics and shorter life expectancies. I think it's probably safe to assume that the last three, Etruscan, kings were historical (though not necessarily their deeds), and that stories of their life reflect a genuine historical tradition of Rome throwing off Etruscan kings to form a republic. But I wouldn't assume anything further about them. The first four kings are more problematic. I can offer you no evidence beyond oral tradition that Romulus and Numa ever existed. Tullus Hostilius was probably a historical figure, but I would be loathe to make any claims about him other than he probably existed. That's it. Ancus Marcius' life is so similar to Numa's that it's impossible to distinguish between the two, or to definitively state whether they were genuinely separate people. After that, we reach the Tarquins, who were probably real, and who seem to follow a hereditary, albeit matrilineal, principle.

So maybe it's safest to say that many - but not necessarily all - of the kings were probably real, but that they almost certainly didn't reign for as long as they were said to have done, that the period of monarchy was therefore probably shorter than tradition holds, that the deeds ascribed to the monarchs should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Hebrew calendar FTW.

Not only is it now the year 5768 (w00t! Space tech!) but it:

a) Eliminates the birth of Jesus as the basis for the calendar, and
b) Since the year 3761 BC (if I did the math right, accounting for the lack of a year 0 in the Gregorian calendar and working backwards) is prehistoric, it isn't the year of birth of some other religious figure. It may have a basis somewhere in Judaism, but few Jews believe in creationism and even fewer believe the earth is only 5,768 years old.

Sure, you might have to get used to celebrating New Year's in the fall, and learning the names of the Hebrew months and days of the year, but isn't it worth it to not have a calendar based on the birth of Jesus?

No

BCE/CE avoid the religious connotations on the surface, but still use the system of marking history by the "birth" of Jesus. Ideally, we should switch to a system that doesn't us that marking. I suggest a system based on the founding of the first civilisation, Sumer, which would set us at about year 7308.

Sort of like the sniveling, inconsequential noisemakers who insist of typing "USian" instead of "American" when they're talking about Americans.

Now see, that annoys me more than BCE/CE does. It's just such a pointless, 'look at me' affectation. But I'm not really going to lose sleep over either one.

No

Epic win.

I am a christian and it is based on the christianity religion. when christ died on the cross, the years started counting up instead on down. because creationists date the earth to begin around 4000B.C., so 2000 years ago, christ died.

I am a christian and it is based on the christianity religion. when christ died on the cross, the years started counting up instead on down. because creationists date the earth to begin around 4000B.C., so 2000 years ago, christ died.

Epic fail.

It's A.D and B.C thats the way it should be, the PC revisionist can fuck off*. nothing wrong with the way it was.


* No need to be nice today, in a crappy mood.

I've never liked BCE/CE because I couldn't imagine why they couldn't come up with a 2 character abbreviation. I also don't see why they changed the format to have the designation come after the year.

AD 1999 became 1999 CE. Why the change?

If they'd gone with something like Common Year (CY), they could have maintained the format (CY 1999) and then used Before Common (BC) just like Before Christ worked.

10,000 BC
CY 1969

However, since you're removing the religious angle, why not follow Carl Sagan's advice and count from the moon landing? Let's make 1969 year 0, so then this would be CY 39.

"Common Era"? what's the Common Era?

BC and AD were used for ages, why change it? definately because there is NO war against Christianity... no sirree... :rolleyes:

and why to something that is ambigous. why not change it to
BZ - Before Zero
AZ - After Zero

and why to something that is ambigous. why not change it to
BZ - Before Zero
AZ - After Zero
I don't think there was a year zero, it went from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1. It kind of makes sense if you think about it: the year 1 B.C. was one year before the birth of Christ, the year A.D. 1 was the first year of our lord ("Anno Domini"). That doesn't mean it's not a royal pain figuring out the age of something that crosses the B.C./A.D. border.

I don't think there was a year zero, it went from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1. It kind of makes sense if you think about it: the year 1 B.C. was one year before the birth of Christ, the year A.D. 1 was the first year of our lord ("Anno Domini"). That doesn't mean it's not a royal pain figuring out the age of something that crosses the B.C./A.D. border.
There was not a year zero, because the concept of zero didn't reach Europe until AD 525 (first known use by Dionysius Exiguus).

I'm not "offended" by people using BC, I simply think they are in error. BCE is the accepted notation (at least where I am). Saying "BC" is basically just like using incorrect grammar or spelling.

Perhaps, but I think a better analogy is to say that using BC or AD is like an incorrectly formatted bibliography. It really doesn't have bearing on non-academic writings, and is generally less confusing to just say BC and AD in day to day speech.

EDIT: Actually, as I think about it I realize that it matters even less in day to day speech. When referring to a date after AD 1/1 CE, I don't say, "One AD," I say "the year One." I only use BC when talking, usually. What that means is I have the choice of saying, "Bee-See" or "Bee-See-Eee." I doubt anyone will even notice.

There was not a year zero, because the concept of zero didn't reach Europe until AD 525 (first known use by Dionysius Exiguus).

of course that same guy introduced the AD system as well...

I don't think there was a year zero, it went from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1. It kind of makes sense if you think about it: the year 1 B.C. was one year before the birth of Christ, the year A.D. 1 was the first year of our lord ("Anno Domini"). That doesn't mean it's not a royal pain figuring out the age of something that crosses the B.C./A.D. border.

you don't need a 'Year Zero'. just the fact that BZ and AZ would seperate 1 BZ and 1 AZ. ;)

There was not a year zero, because the concept of zero didn't reach Europe until AD 525 (first known use by Dionysius Exiguus).

Thats right there is no year zero, which is why all those people who were celebrating the new millenium on 31st december 1999 were celebrating one year early. After all the year 2000 was the 2000th year and thus at the end of AD 2000 meant that then 2000 years had passed

Everything is 'Before Present'. You can't have a constantly moving 'year zero'.

Wouldn't that be more of a "Day Zero"? Or even a "Second Zero"? If it isn't happening RIGHT NOW it occurred Before Present.

"Common Era"? what's the Common Era?

the era of dates in the commonly used calendar

noone prolly cares, but for what its worth, i think that if they are going to call it something else, i think they should start the time system over and give themselves a starting point. i know it means common era, but it seems kinda stupid to change it and not change the scale also. if we started soon, you could refer to wwii as ending around 65 bce(don't kill me i know its not exact)...etc. if it means so much to the world to take Jesus Christ out of it, do it right.

I understand what they are trying to do by switching it from the christ related system to BCE and CE, but it still revolves around christs birth. I think if they wanted to change it they should have changed it, even though it would have been easier to just leave it alone.

Actually, lets switch to the AC/DC system instead! \m/


ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AC/DC System say I!


---u better say I, or else...
:mp5:
:mp5: :sniper:
:mp5:
:mp5: :sniper:
:mp5:
:mp5: :sniper:

the era of dates in the commonly used calendar

ah, but which calendar.

Gregorian, which actually started around the 15th century?
The Roman calendar which stared deep in the BC era?
the Julian calendar which started in the 40-50 BC area
The Egyptian Calendar which was used looong before anything else?

and all those, plus the Lunar Calendar were all commonly used during their time period.

ah, but which calendar.

Gregorian, which actually started around the 15th century?
The Roman calendar which stared deep in the BC era?
the Julian calendar which started in the 40-50 BC area
The Egyptian Calendar which was used looong before anything else?

and all those, plus the Lunar Calendar were all commonly used during their time period.

Lunar Calendar? Is that the cycles of the moon determine the earths time?

Lunar Calendar? Is that the cycles of the moon determine the earths time?

yep. it was the bases used by many civilizations calenders, including the Chinese, Babylonians, Greeks and others.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I base my calendar around the writing of the Ars Amatoria. Which puts us at...

Year 2008.

ah, but which calendar.

the one that is commonly used now. are you actually mystified by the idea of privileging the already accepted and utilized count of years?

the one that is commonly used now. are you actually mystified by the idea of privileging the already accepted and utilized count of years?

Which started around the 15th century, which is the era for today's calendar.

The use of CE/BCE has always confused me. Surely if you want to secularise the notation you would pick a non-religious date as year zero.

Yeah, but that'd require 'correcting' all the books in circulation at the moment, which would just be complicated. It's much simpler to simply change the name.

That said, despite being an Atheist leftie I tend to use AD/BC anyway, simply because they're impossible to mix up: it's pretty easy to write BC instead of BCE if you're dashing off a last minute essay, or to misread BC as BCE if you're reading quickly.

Where's the option for a 13-month lunar calendar instead? :P

the era of dates in the commonly used calendar

More accurately, the era since the birth of Jesus Christ.

I understand what they are trying to do by switching it from the christ related system to BCE and CE, but it still revolves around christs birth. I think if they wanted to change it they should have changed it, even though it would have been easier to just leave it alone.

Actually the New Testament places Jesus' birth in either 6AD or before 4BC, depending on whether you believe 'Matthew' or 'Luke', so the calendar isn't really based around his birth anyway...

More accurately, the era since the birth of Jesus Christ.Nope. It's the commonly used calendar with a back-calculated origin date that does not coincide with the assumed date of birth of Yeshua (who some folks claim to be "Christ").

Actually the New Testament places Jesus' birth in either 6AD or before 4BC, depending on whether you believe 'Matthew' or 'Luke', so the calendar isn't really based around his birth anyway...

Oh, so it is just coincidence that the "lord" mentioned in "the year of our lord" is jesus christ?

Just coincidence that jesus' birth is either 4 or 6 years off of 1 AD based on 'who you believe' ?

Nope. It's the commonly used calendar with a back-calculated origin date that does not coincide with the assumed date of birth of Yeshua (who some folks claim to be "Christ").

Ah, so it is a coincidence which does not coincide (whatever that means)?

No connection between jesus' birth and the line of demarcation between BC/AD?

Oh, so it is just coincidence that the "lord" mentioned in "the year of our lord" is jesus christ?

Just coincidence that jesus' birth is either 4 or 6 years off of 1 AD based on 'who you believe' ?

Did I deny that it was supposed to be based around Jesus' birth? No, of course I didn't. I pointed out that, regardless of what it's supposed to be based around, it isn't really based around his birth at all.

Oh, and we're talking about a minimum of four years off 1AD, Matthew simply places the birth at some time during the reign of Herod the Great.

Did I deny that it was supposed to be based around Jesus' birth? No, of course I didn't. I pointed out that, regardless of what it's supposed to be based around, it isn't really based around his birth at all.

Oh, and we're talking about a minimum of four years off 1AD, Matthew simply places the birth at some time during the reign of Herod the Great.

It misses his birth by a small margin, because it is intended to be based on his birth, but at the same time "isn't based around his birth at all?"

What kind of sense is that supposed to make?

It misses his birth by a small margin, because it is intended to be based on his birth, but at the same time "isn't based around his birth at all?"

What kind of sense is that supposed to make?

It isn't based around his birth because he wasn't born in 1AD (at least, according to the Gospels, which aren't exactly reliable but are all we've got). If I said "The new calendar should be based around the date 1850, now to be 1CE, because that's when Darwin published the Origin of Species" then my calendar wouldn't be based around the publication of the OoS because that's not when it was published! However much I intended it to be based around that event it wouldn't be, because my date would simply be wrong.

Clear?

It isn't based around his birth because he wasn't born in 1AD (at least, according to the Gospels, which aren't exactly reliable but are all we've got). If I said "The new calendar should be based around the date 1850, now to be 1CE, because that's when Darwin published the Origin of Species" then my calendar wouldn't be based around the publication of the OoS because that's not when it was published! However much I intended it to be based around that event it wouldn't be, because my date would simply be wrong.

Clear?

Who cares?

What you're trying to say is that "the BC/AD system is ostensibly and explicitly based around the birth of jesus, but may not be precisely accurate in its estimation of the year he was born."

The entire idea of "AD" and "BC" is "being based around the birth of Jesus." whether or not it is entirely accurate in the year it appoints as his birth, both the theory and the practice are to base it "around" his birth.

What possible relevance does it have to a discussion of the folly of changing "AD" to "CE"

Who cares?

You apparently. You've now made four posts in response to UB and myself on this point... ;)

EDIT: five if you respond to this one. :p

What you're saying is that "the BC/AD system is supposed to be based around the birth of jesus, but cannot possibly be accurate in its allocation of the year [in which] he was born, given the accuracy of either the Gospel of Matthew, Luke or John (which gives no information on Jesus' birth, but implies that he was in his forties when he began his ministry)."

Thank you for the thought, but I don't need you to tell me what it is I'm trying to say. I've expressed my opinion several times in this thread, and your attempt to tell me what I really meant lacks accuracy, please see my corrections in bold.

The entire idea of "AD" and "BC" is "being based around the birth of Jesus." whether or not it is entirely accurate in the year it appoints as his birth, both the theory and the practice are to base it "around" his birth.

Well done. I've already explicitly stated that it's supposed to be based around the birth of Jesus, but wishing does not change reality. According to the Gospels, he simply wasn't born in that year. See my example of basing a new calendar around the publication of the Origin of Species: if we assign 1CE to what was previously 1850AD because that was when the Origin was published then our calendar would not be based on its publication because it wasn't published in that year. Our intentions wouldn't make it any less wrong, no?

What possible relevance does it have to a discussion of the folly of changing "AD" to "CE"

It was intended mainly for the edification of the poster who claimed that the current system "revolves around christs birth", but also to dismiss the common argument employed by Christians that 1AD is a specifically Christian date. 1CE is an arbitrary date which isn't supported by the Gospels, and a secular system can use it just as readily as a religious system.

<words go here>

You are are arguing semantics. Which does not work in a historical context. AD and BC is a label that we use, which was established on the supposed birth of Christ. That there is a 6 margin of error is irrelevant when discussing what AD and BC mean.

You are arguing accuracy. Granada is arguing legitimacy. They are not the same.

You are are arguing semantics. Which does not work in a historical context. AD and BC is a label that we use, which was established on the supposed birth of Christ. That there is a 6 margin of error is irrelevant when discussing what AD and BC mean.

You are arguing accuracy. Granada is arguing legitimacy. They are not the same.

Firstly, please refrain from bolding words at random. It adds nothing to your post and serves only to make the post harder to read, especially when replying to it when all the tags are visible.

Secondly, please go back and read the post which I was originally replying to, before NG and I started our exchange:

I understand what they are trying to do by switching it from the christ related system to BCE and CE, but it still revolves around christs birth. I think if they wanted to change it they should have changed it, even though it would have been easier to just leave it alone.

This post was specifically arguing against the retention of 1AD as a pivot for a secular calendar on the grounds that it was the year Jesus was born, and as such is an inherently Christian date. Pointing out that Jesus wasn't born in 1AD is therefore an entirely relevant response. I've already given the example of basing a calendar around the Origin of Species whcih nobody's addressed.

This is not just quibbling, this was a response to TRE's point which was then intercepted by NG and now you.

Firstly, please refrain from bolding words at random. It adds nothing to your post and serves only to make the post harder to read, especially when replying to it when all the tags are visible.

Fixed :D

Fixed :D

Thank you.

Firstly, please refrain from bolding words at random. It adds nothing to your post and serves only to make the post harder to read, especially when replying to it when all the tags are visible.

I think it's fun.

Secondly, please go back and read the post which I was originally replying to, before NG and I started our exchange:

I don't want to.

Oh, well, you did it for me. Thank you.

This post was specifically arguing against the retention of 1AD as a pivot for a secular calendar on the grounds that it was the year Jesus was born, and as such is an inherently Christian date. Pointing out that Jesus wasn't born in 1AD is therefore an entirely relevant response. I've already given the example of basing a calendar around the Origin of Species which nobody's addressed.

Your point is moot. We celebrate Easter on Sunday, regardless of the fact that the actual date changes with each Sunday. The reason why people would not accept your date for the Origin of Species is because we are significantly more accurate in our dating system these days. If you set the date (properly) at midnight, no one is going to pitch a fit because the book was not published exactly at midnight, and would still refer to said system as perhaps BCD and ACD.

It is close enough. He was born sometime around 1 AD, at the time they thought it was 1 AD, and they intended it to be 1 AD. You are arguing the semantics of the phrase "based on."

This is not just quibbling, this was a response to TRE's point which was then intercepted by NG and now you.

Apparently your QB or WR is terrible. You should trade them for someone better.

Fixed :D

Where's that fishsmack smilie when you need it... :p

Thank you.



I think it's fun.



I don't want to.

Oh, well, you did it for me. Thank you.



Your point is moot. We celebrate Easter on Sunday, regardless of the fact that the actual date changes with each Sunday. The reason why people would not accept your date for the Origin of Species is because we are significantly more accurate in our dating system these days. If you set the date (properly) at midnight, no one is going to pitch a fit because the book was not published exactly at midnight, and would still refer to said system as perhaps BCD and ACD.

It is close enough. He was born sometime around 1 AD, at the time they thought it was 1 AD, and they intended it to be 1 AD. You are arguing the semantics of the phrase "based on."



Apparently your QB or WR is terrible. You should trade them for someone better.

Argh!!! My eyes!!!

Argh!!! My eyes!!!

http://www.aclens.com/accessoryphotos/visine_original_lg.jpg

Ah, so it is a coincidence which does not coincide (whatever that means)?

No connection between jesus' birth and the line of demarcation between BC/AD?not any more in the calendar system we use today. jesus' birth is/was not in "year one".

not any more in the calendar system we use today. jesus' birth is/was not in "year one".

The year one was designated to be on Jesus' birthday. You are going about this assbackwards. The date was based on the birth, not the other way around. That the date is not entirely accurate does not change what the date originally signified.

Perhaps, but the whole system is based around the birth of Christ anyway, whether you call it something else or not.

It is years-off. Just think: Was not Christ supposed to be born on Christmas? He was not born on Christmas or New Year, or even in the year "0".

The year one was designated to be on Jesus' birthday. You are going about this assbackwards. The date was based on the birth, not the other way around. That the date is not entirely accurate does not change what the date originally signified.But if Annus Domini 1 is not in fact annus domini 1, why call it thus? And if Jesus was born in 4 BC, how stupid can it get?

But if Annus Domini 1 is not in fact annus domini 1, why call it thus? And if Jesus was born in 4 BC, how stupid can it get?

You are missing the point. The point was intention.

RhynoDD;13545185']You are missing the point. The point was intention.Intention is irrelevant. Accurate and meaningful naming is.

Intention is irrelevant. Accurate and meaningful naming is.

Not in history.

You are arguing semantics in a field in which you cannot argue semantics.

Not in history.

You are arguing semantics in a field in which you cannot argue semantics.This is not about history. It's about the currently used calendar.

This is not about history. It's about the currently used calendar.

Which is based on a moment in history.

Which is based on a moment in history.Yep, 1582.

Yep, 1582.

On not in.

On not in.??

Does it REALLY matter? Really?

Does it REALLY matter? Really?

To some people, apparently. The current debate seems to be whether secularizing a religious convention is okay because it is more palatable to non-religious folk, or is not okay because it rejects the religious origin.

It seems to be about what the argument would be if I had originally asked whether changing "Easter bunny" to "spring bunny" is offensive to anyone.

Not in history.

You are arguing semantics in a field in which you cannot argue semantics.

I've already pointed out to you the reason for this point being raised: it was suggested that CE/BCE shouldn't be based around 1AD because that is an explicitly religious date (Jesus' birth). My point (and I think UB's) is that 1AD has always been an arbitrary date anyway, as it isn't the year of Jesus' birth, and so there's no reason why it can't be used as the basis of a secular dating system. Semantics doesn't come into it, reality does.

Think of it this way if you prefer: some people suggest that Atheists shouldn't celebrate Christmas with Christmas trees, Santa etc. because they're part of a Christian holiday. The standard retort to this is that both the trees and Santa are unconnected to Christianity, and were simply tacked on later, so they're not Christian and there's no reason why Atheists shouldn't enjoy them.

To some people, apparently. The current debate seems to be whether secularizing a religious convention is okay because it is more palatable to non-religious folk, or is not okay because it rejects the religious origin.

It seems to be about what the argument would be if I had originally asked whether changing "Easter bunny" to "spring bunny" is offensive to anyone.

but you're favoring the Lagomorpha, it should be changed to Easter Creature!

funny how it's those people who say they 'don't care' either way that are arguing the most.

to me it's this simple question. do I want to spend the money to effect a name change?

I've already pointed out to you the reason for this point being raised: it was suggested that CE/BCE shouldn't be based around 1AD because that is an explicitly religious date (Jesus' birth). My point (and I think UB's) is that 1AD has always been an arbitrary date anyway, as it isn't the year of Jesus' birth, and so there's no reason why it can't be used as the basis of a secular dating system. Semantics doesn't come into it, reality does.

I think the point being raised by several is that since it's an arbitrary date anyways, there's no point in changing it.

But it is not an arbitrary date.

But that does not matter either. The point is that CE/BCE and AD/BC use the same date as year one, so everyone should stop caring about whether or not AD 1 is really when Jesus' birthday is.

so why change it from BC/AD to BCE/CE?

Realise it would be easier for christians to then argue that BCE = Before Christian Era and CE = Christian Era which would be more accurate than 'common era'.

so why change it from BC/AD to BCE/CE?

Realise it would be easier for christians to then argue that BCE = Before Christian Era and CE = Christian Era which would be more accurate than 'common era'.

I never said to change it.

I never said to change it.

ooops, sorry, I redirect the question to those supporting the change then. :p

How common is this BCE/CE stuff in the English speaking world? I've certainly never heard it before other than in NSG.

We still use "v. Chr." (BC) and "" (AD) or "AD" (AD). Unless we change dates (like Unix time or something), changing the letters doesn't make sense anyway... as has been pointed out, muslims and Chinese have their own date anyway, so who is this supposed to prevent from being offended? Atheists? And what's so common in this era?

How about we start using a different year as a reference point? 1969 for example.

but you're favoring the Lagomorpha, it should be changed to Easter Creature!

Does anyone else think the above would probably be described with the adjective "slavering"?

How about we start using a different year as a reference point? 1969 for example.

It's Unix time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time). Drink responsibly kids.
Or just UTC. UTC would work.

How common is this BCE/CE stuff in the English speaking world? I've certainly never heard it before other than in NSG.

We still use "v. Chr." (BC) and "" (AD) or "AD" (AD). Unless we change dates (like Unix time or something), changing the letters doesn't make sense anyway... as has been pointed out, muslims and Chinese have their own date anyway, so who is this supposed to prevent from being offended? Atheists? And what's so common in this era?

The Christian system is the most commonly used system. It's pretty much used by almost everyone worldwide, so of course people are going to use the Christian era as the common era. Few nonMuslims would know what Muslim year it is. Few nonChinese would know what Chinese year it is. But everyone would know that it's 2008 AD.

So, instead of making a brand new calendar and picking some random date as day one of year one, everyone uses a calendar that's already been created.

The point is that CE/BCE and AD/BC use the same date as year one, so everyone should stop caring about whether or not AD 1 is really when Jesus' birthday is.But the AD/BC system does claim that Jesus' birth was in its year 1, and that is just not accurate. The CE/BCE system does not make such a claim, it only regards the currently used numbering of years independent of what it originally may have been supposed to be based on.

But the AD/BC system does claim that Jesus' birth was in its year 1, and that is just not accurate. The CE/BCE system does not make such a claim, it only regards the currently used numbering of years independent of what it originally may have been supposed to be based on.

...using the current calendar system which was created in the 15th century. thus even BCE/CE is wrong, but with a greater margin of error than Jesus's birth.

...using the current calendar system which was created in the 15th century. thus even BCE/CE is wrong, but with a greater margin of error than Jesus's birth.what? there is no error in the BCE/CE numbering. it is completely arbitrary and nobody ever claimed it were not. that's its advantage.

what? there is no error in the BCE/CE numbering. it is completely arbitrary and nobody ever claimed it were not. that's its advantage.

er.. 'Common Era'.

that can be interpreted in soo many different ways by many different people and each one can point to a different year for their 'year 1 CE'.

someone here said it's defined by the calendar system which the basis for the modern one was created about the 15th century.

or which of the 'periods' could be considered 'Common Era'? Enlightenment? Industrial, Information? Dark? how about a lettering system for each. EP for Enlightenment, IR for Industrial, IT for Information, etc.

All well after year 1 AD.

perhaps we keep year 1 AD/CE/Whatever but that was determined by (what you and other insist, and I won't contest) an error. so we make this change but keep the error? then why make the change in the first place?

(I hope there is no problem referring to another board here.) There's an argument going on in the IMDB Boards about the merits of BCE and CE over BC and AD for dates. (linky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/board/nest/89448581))



I've seen both used and understand what someone is saying when they use any one of them. My question is this: Does anyone here actually get offended if someone says, for example, 541 BC instead of 541 BCE? Or vice versa?

1) the film is as far from scholarly as you can possibly get.
2) Meh, same difference, who cares? It STILL references the same period.

The use of CE/BCE has always confused me. Surely if you want to secularise the notation you would pick a non-religious date as year zero.

This, too.

er.. 'Common Era'.

that can be interpreted in soo many different ways by many different people and each one can point to a different year for their 'year 1 CE'.

someone here said it's defined by the calendar system which the basis for the modern one was created about the 15th century.

or which of the 'periods' could be considered 'Common Era'? Enlightenment? Industrial, Information? Dark? how about a lettering system for each. EP for Enlightenment, IR for Industrial, IT for Information, etc.

All well after year 1 AD.

perhaps we keep year 1 AD/CE/Whatever but that was determined by (what you and other insist, and I won't contest) an error. so we make this change but keep the error? then why make the change in the first place?

what?

just tell me: 1 AD == 4 BCE or 1 AD == 6 CE ?

what?

just tell me: 1 AD == 4 BCE or 1 AD == 6 CE ?

what's the 'common era' to you?

what's the 'common era' to you?The era (year count) that was commonly used in Europe when the new calendar system was published in 1582.

what?

just tell me: 1 AD == 4 BCE or 1 AD == 6 CE ?

No. AD 1 and 1 CE are the same year. The discrepancy is that back when they were determining the birth year of Christ, they were slightly off. The actual birth of Christ was somewhere between 4 BC and AD 6. But AD/BC and CE/BCE use the same year as year 1. AD 2008 is the same as 2008 CE.

It is believed that the calculation was off by 6 years. I didn't spend half my life in a Catholic school-cum-prison not to know that. And it is highly relevant as unlike Thor, a theological notion had to do with the placement of the years.

Oh, by the way, my overlord Thor is HIGHLY relevant to my Thursdays
and the derivation of Thursday has NOTHING TO DO WITH THOR.

Thursday is from Thunresdæg, was the Old English for Day Of Thunder, as for those who spoke Latin it was Jovis dies, the day of Jupiter, who was usually associated with Thunder.

So, you should really ask, how important is Jupiter to my Thrusdays?
Cor vitæ dieique est would be my answer.
And if you don't speak Latin as well as I, may Thor help you.

http://spanish.about.com/od/historyofspanish/a/names_of_days.htm

In English, the pattern is similar, but with a key difference. The connections between Sunday and the sun, between Monday and the moon, and between Saturn and Saturday should be obvious. The difference with the other days is that English is a Germanic language, and the names of equivalent Germanic gods were substituted for the Roman gods.

Mars, for example, was the god of war, while the Germanic god of war was Tiu, whose name became part of Tuesday. Wednesday is a modification of Woden's Day; Woden was a god who was swift like Mercury. You may have heard of the Norse god Thor; a variation of that name was the basis for naming Thursday. Finally, Frigg, after whom Friday was named, was like Venus a goddess of love.

No. AD 1 and 1 CE are the same year. The discrepancy is that back when they were determining the birth year of Christ, they were slightly off. The actual birth of Christ was somewhere between 4 BC and AD 6. But AD/BC and CE/BCE use the same year as year 1. AD 2008 is the same as 2008 CE.However, AD numbering claims that Jesus' birth was in 1 AD, hence the name of the numbering system.

http://spanish.about.com/od/historyofspanish/a/names_of_days.htm

The connection with Jupiter is not quite so apparent with jueves, the word for Thursday, until you remember that "Jovian" is the adjective form of Jupiter in English, coming from a Latin root.

Thursday is from Thunresdæg, was the Old English for Day Of Thunder, as for those who spoke Latin it was Jovis dies, the day of Jupiter, who was usually associated with Thunder.

Meh.

I propose a new system.

BNS and PNS.

It is now the year 5 PNS.

(of course, think of how that sounds....) :p

However, AD numbering claims that Jesus' birth was in 1 AD, hence the name of the numbering system.

Untrue. It never makes that claim. It simply makes the claim that when they began the Gregorian calendar it was believed that Jesus' was born in AD 1. Which is not the same as claiming that he was.

Wikipeda first says that

The contemporary name comes from the Old English Þunresdæg (with loss of -n-, first in northern dialects, from influence of Old Norse Þorsdagr), meaning "Day of Thunor", this being a rough Germanic equivalent to the Latn Iovis Dies, "Jupiter's Day". Most Germanic and Romance-speaking countries use their languages' equivalents: German Donnerstag, torsdag in Scandinavia, Italian giovedì, Spanish jueves, French jeudi, Catalan dijous, and Romanian joi.

And in case you were wondering, "Thunor" was a link and yes, it did redirect me to article on Thor.