Home

TheSinner.net

BC vs BCE

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: BC vs BCE

Postby Hennessy on Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:04 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:any attempts to retroactively alter the documented dates from the last 1600 years would be an utter nightmare. Which is a shame, as the BC counting-backwards thing is a pain in the arse


Sorry Redcelt, I only got as far as this sentence before I started giggling. That's what I meant by re-imagining history. You wouldn't have brought it up if you didn't object to it, if you didn't want a debate, yes?

RedCelt69 wrote:"Before Christ"... every single time

So what? I doubt it affected your understanding of what he meant, just like I doubt that any Chinese students who many have been present would have had trouble understanding either. Why does it matter what his personal beliefs are if he's not trying to push them on you? Don't be such an insidious little bastard and it won't get to you.

RedCelt69 wrote:Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yup. Mm-hmm. Yes. <nodding>

Thanks for your agreement.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: BC vs BCE

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:20 pm

My point of view as a historian is that
a) trying to re-date everything would indeed be a complete (and un-necessary) nightmare--the Russian revolution when they still used a different calendar (Gregorian/Julian, I think), or the French revolution are good examples of the pain of trying to get two sets of dates to synch up. And of course nobody would agree which arbitrary point would be best to begin the new system from.
b) as an atheist/agnostic, I see no problem with using AD/BC. In fact I prefer them to BCE and CE, because I feel that AD and BC are culturally rooted, but the 'Common Era' idea strikes me a tending more into a kind of vague cultural imperialism, in the way that western culture is continuing to spread over the world. I know that international trade, treaties, etc, would also be a nightmare if they all had to work in different calendars, and the UN would be worse than the tower of Babel, but I personally feel that CE is pretentious. BC and AD work fine, why change them?
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: BC vs BCE

Postby Tweedle-Dum on Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:19 pm

Couldn't we set year zero as 4004 BC, as we all know the earth was created on 23 October of that year.
Tetragrammaton is a four letter word.
Tweedle-Dum
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 3:24 pm

Re: BC vs BCE

Postby RedCelt69 on Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:53 pm

Hennessy wrote:<white noise>

Tweedle-Dum wrote:Couldn't we set year zero as 4004 BC, as we all know the earth was created on 23 October of that year.

Morning, or afternoon? ^.^
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: BC vs BCE

Postby Haunted on Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:04 am

Was that Eastern time?
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: BC vs BCE

Postby Humphrey on Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:42 am

According to James Ussher the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. In fairness to him, he was writing in the 17th century and had only the bible to go on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Humphrey
User avatar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:29 pm

Previous

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests