Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 15:00:32 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. > >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 :) Bravo Bravo, One less member amongst the ignorant masses, who think the millenium starts Jan. 1 2000. > >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.