Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:02:01 12/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 1999 at 02:15:13, KarinsDad wrote:
>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.
Fascinating, and thank you for the informed opinion.
>
>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. ;)
We knew that. We were just testing to see if you did. ;-)
Albert Silver
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.