 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 22
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Last Visit: 13 Sep 2006
Location: Canada
| | |
|
| B.C.E. , C.E vs B.C. , A.D. |
 Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
 |
|
i think that we should make an effort to enforce useing BCE (before common era) and CE (Common era) instead of using "before christ" and "after death". Im not denying that christ was a person i just dont think we should use his instance as a historical way of knowing dates. BCE & CE is somthing that we can all agree, wouldnt you say so?
|
|
|
|  |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
 |
|
53
|
Posts: 13857
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Last Visit: 07 Feb 2010
LDs: 39 LDs so far
Location: Lancashire England.
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
you posted this in the dreamspell forum which follows the 13 moon calendar and so it doesnt belong there.
also AD does not stand for after death but is latin for the year of the lord
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
Posts: 1666
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Last Visit: 26 Oct 2008
Location: the real world
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
I used to think AD stood for "after death" as well when I was little! It should be - it makes more sense than the Latin! I do use BCE and CE anyway, but it's not something that comes up very often unless you're discussing ancient history, really.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
Posts: 9238
Joined: 05 May 2002
Last Visit: 09 Feb 2010
LDs: lost uhm lots
Location: behind the mirror ;-)
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
but when do you define when the 'common era' starts then?
i find BC and AD much easier, since the year "0" marks the birth of Christ. (In the western calender then).
When is the 'year 0' of BCE?
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 5469
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 05 Feb 2010
LDs: a bunch.
Location: board #56.
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Q, it is not year zero.  We get feom 1 BC to 1 AD, there's no year zero.
This is why 2000 is (though people didn't seem to care to this little detail) the last year of the second millenium and 2001 is the real first year from the third millenium.
edit: The birth of Christ was in the first year of God, 1 AD.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
Posts: 9238
Joined: 05 May 2002
Last Visit: 09 Feb 2010
LDs: lost uhm lots
Location: behind the mirror ;-)
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Oops.  In my mind there is a 0 somewhere on that timeline. But you are right. But my question remains, what is the 'starting point' if you will, of CE then?
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 5469
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 05 Feb 2010
LDs: a bunch.
Location: board #56.
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
Posts: 361
Joined: 11 May 2004
Last Visit: 22 Nov 2007
Location: Transdniestria
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
As far as I can remember, there is an "astronomical" version of the Gregorian calendar, with 0 instead 1 B.C., -1 instead 2 B.C. and so on (dates on our side of the zero year are the same), it is used in science, when adding and subtracting 1 can be a sore... But the "common" calendar has no "zero year", only "zero point" - midnight from 31 Dec 1 B.C. to 1 Jan 1 A.D.
P.S. I forgot what A.D. stands for  Anno Domini?
P.P.S. Whenever Jesus Christ existed, He was most likely not born in 1 B.C. This year was chosen almost voluntarily, and it was done in 4th century or something like that by some monk, who had no historical info on that epoch...
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
Posts: 3884
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 16 Dec 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Well, B.C.E refers to the same date as B.C. does right? Why not leave it the same if it means the same thing?
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 22
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Last Visit: 13 Sep 2006
Location: Canada
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
BCE is the same thing as BC. BC to me tells me were useing the christian way of a timeline (not in a radical sense), while BCE is more culturaly diverse. does this make sense?
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Everyone is use to BC and AD so lets keep it that way.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 22
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Last Visit: 13 Sep 2006
Location: Canada
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Just because people are used to it doesnt mean it should stay the same. Like i said before..
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
There is nothing wrong with using Before Christ.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
Posts: 361
Joined: 11 May 2004
Last Visit: 22 Nov 2007
Location: Transdniestria
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Well, as I was born in USSR, i am used to "Common Era"... 
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
Posts: 575
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Last Visit: 14 Dec 2009
LDs: Not Enough
Location: Netherlands, The
| | |
|
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Dec, 2005 |
|
|
Anno Domini = year of the lord?
(I should pay more attention during latin class..)
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
 | |
| |
