Author: KarinsDad
Date: 23:15:13 12/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 21:21:29, Keith Ian Price wrote: >On December 24, 1999 at 15:52:48, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On December 24, 1999 at 12:00:44, Keith Ian Price wrote: >> >>>On December 24, 1999 at 10:38:33, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On December 24, 1999 at 10:09:34, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>>The millenium does not start till 2001!! 2000 is last year of this millenium. >>>>> >>>>>2000 is just the cap, 2001 is the beggining man i want to blow up the world i'm >>>>>tired of people refusing to acknowledge the obvious ughhh! Merry X-mas >>>>>>MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! >>>> >>>>Only if the calendar started with a 1. If on the other hand Year 1 represented >>>>the first year to pass (like a baby's first birthday), 2000 is indeed the >>>>beginning of the second millenium. The debate is in fact all based on this. I >>>>for one believe that Year 1 was the first year to pass, therefore the year 2000 >>>>is the beginning of the third millenium after Christ. >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>> >>>I must admit I am rather surprised at this statement, Albert. You are normally >>>quite logical in your premises. Of course the calendar started with 1. People >>>didn't have computers back then, so starting with 0 didn't make sense to them. >>>And equally, of course year 1 represented the first year to pass (like a baby's >>>first birthday), so, of course the millenium starts with 2001. If year 1 was the >>>first year to pass in the 1st millenium, year 2001 will be the first year to >>>pass in the third millenium. >> >>I thought we were celebrating the beginning of the millenium which after >>midnight. After midnight will commence the first second, first minute, and then >>the first hour of the third millenium. Do we really need to wait a whole year >>into the millenium to celebrate its commencement? >>Does a baby's life start when they celebrate their first birthday? Or is it when >>they are born? > >Well, A.D. stands for Anno Domino (Year of the Lord), and the year did start >when he was born and it was the first year (1) not the zeroth year. If you add >2000 to 1 you get 2001. Perhaps the millenium could start on January 1, 2000 >P.D. (Post Domino), where the first year after the Lord's birth would be 1 P.D., >but then B.C. would become A.D., and people would really get confused! > >>Well, the argument about the calendar starting at zero or one due to the Romans >>seems a bit strange, particularly as I seriously doubt the Romans decided to >>create a new calendar based on the man they had just finished crucifying. > >It wasn't the Romans. It was a monk several centuries later. And his >calculations were most likely inaccurate, so that Christ was actually born in 4 >B.C., which would mean that we all missed the big party in 1997. But since the >big party is really about a new millenium and not a particular time after >Christ's birth, we should stick to the calendar we have and keep it 2001. >Besides, the party won't be as expensive, or crowded, and you will be less >likely to get blown up. Well thought out, but slightly inaccurate. The Lord was born on or about March 1st 7 BC based on most work done by biblical scholars. This was done by cross referencing the Greek New Testament with other works at or shortly after the time such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the books of Josephus, Roman Archives, etc. (for example, Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC according to the Bible). The anti-Herodian party at Qumran three years after Herod's death are the actual people who decided to begin the millennium again. They declared the Herodian generation of 41 BC to 1 BC to be a zero generation. The year 1 BC (3940) became 0 and AD 1 became 1 (and yes, they decided to have a zero year, but it effectively encompassed 41 years and was NOT part of the new calendar and millennium as they wanted to forget everything about Herod). This party choose a heir of David as opposed to a heir of Herod as king. So, if you base it on the birth of Jesus, then it should have been about 5 years and 10 months ago. Of course, there have been a few "adjustments" in the calendar since then, so the actual "new millennium" should have started already, but it would take some research to find out the exact date. But, if you base it off the calendar, the next millennium will start on January 1, 2001 (regardless of popular opinion, what sounds better, or the Y2K problem). A millennium is a thousand years, not 999 and not 1040. Hence, if January 1, 1 is the first day of the first "new" millennium (which the Davidians thought it should be), than January 1, 2001 will be the first day of the third "new" millennium. At any rate, I just got back from my holidays and wanted to wish everyone a Happy New Year, regardless of which one it is. KarinsDad :) PS. It's spelled millennium. ;)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.