www.conservapedia.com

[wolf]

A.D. means "Anno Domini" or "In the Year of Our Lord" as in "On the 14th of May in the Year of Our Lord 1607 the Jamestown Colony was established."

B.C., meaning (years) Before Christ, comes after the date, as in "Cleopatra reigned in Egypt from 51 to 30 B.C."

If you're using B.C.E. and C.E., (Before Common Era and Common Era), those both come after the date.

As usual, Wikipedia has more complete poop.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by wolf

If you're using B.C.E. and C.E., (Before Common Era and Common Era), those both come after the date.

As usual, Wikipedia has more complete poop.

Exactly why we scientists view Wikipedia with some measure of distrust. Apart from being a scientist, I have also had a life-long love of history. I am a member of The Australian Centre for Egyptology, and BCE means before Christ (ie. up to and including 1 BC), and CE means after Christ (ie. from 1 AD on). There is no year zero - that is why 2000 was the last year of the 20th century, and 2001, the first of the 21st. The "common erra" terms came into affect due to "religious sensibilities" - that is, not wanting to offend non Christians. The fact that the date of Christ's birth was calculated (as it has turned out, incorrectly), several centuries after the fact, does not mean that the Common Erra starts from the date of calculation - it replaces AD.

From the Oxford dictionary:

BCE

• abbreviation before the Common Era (indicating dates before the Christian era, used especially by non-Christians).

CE

• abbreviation 1 Church of England. 2 Common Era.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Exactly why we scientists view Wikipedia with some measure of distrust.

[Phil]

B.C. and A.D. only exist in Christainity as numerous ego-maniacs have tried to stop / change tiime.
for instance, September would have been the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, December the 10th month.
As i am not a scientist, i present this in laymens' terms. :p

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Phil

B.C. and A.D. only exist in Christainity as numerous ego-maniacs have tried to stop / change tiime.

You are correct that the concept of BC and AD came out of Christianity, and that there is a certain level of insanity in trying to manipulate our time-line, but some method of independent dating was needed. At the time that the idea of BC and AD was put forward, no one had an "earliest" starting date (yes, I know, several were "calculated"). Different societies and religions had (and still have), their own calendars, and starting dates. I am not a Christian, though I believe most strongly that Jesus lived, and was a great man.

Historians for centuries have accepted year one AD as a starting point to move forward, and this coincidently gives year one BC a starting point moving backwards, that has no artificial limit. So being tied to some calendar that starts at 1, but does not recognise anything before that date, would be like tying our hands behind our back.

It does not matter that the Christian method was adopted. It does not matter that Jesus was likely born somewhere between 4 BC and 7 BC. The BC/AD system has worked. Personally, I would prefer to stick to BC/AD rather than BCE/CE, but as I said previously, historians decided that the old terminology was offensive to too many people, so they changed it.

BTW, I started this thread saying that the conservapedia worries me. I do not support it in *any* way. My concerns with Wikipedia are that entries can be added and modified by anyone, regardess of the validity of what they write. The "editors" are just random people on the Net. There is no vetting of their knowledge or experience. Jim Wales admitted this in an NPR interview some weeks ago.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

You are correct that the concept of BC and AD came out of Christianity, and that there is a certain level of insanity in trying to manipulate our time-line, but some method of independent dating was needed. At the time that the idea of BC and AD was put forward, no one had an "earliest" starting date (yes, I know, several were "calculated"). Different societies and religions had (and still have), their own calendars, and starting dates. I am not a Christian, though I believe most strongly that Jesus lived, and was a great man.

Historians for centuries have accepted year one AD as a starting point to move forward, and this coincidently gives year one BC a starting point moving backwards, that has no artificial limit. So being tied to some calendar that starts at 1, but does not recognise anything before that date, would be like tying our hands behind our back.

It does not matter that the Christian method was adopted. It does not matter that Jesus was likely born somewhere between 4 BC and 7 BC. The BC/AD system has worked. Personally, I would prefer to stick to BC/AD rather than BCE/CE, but as I said previously, historians decided that the old terminology was offensive to too many people, so they changed it.

BTW, I started this thread saying that the conservapedia worries me. I do not support it in *any* way. My concerns with Wikipedia are that entries can be added and modified by anyone, regardess of the validity of what they write. The "editors" are just random people on the Net. There is no vetting of their knowledge or experience. Jim Wales admitted this in an NPR interview some weeks ago.

i agree, but there is also evidence that the time-line has also been cocked up by historians who misunderstood the Egyptian dynasties and as a result lost a few hundred years. i dont know the details of it, but i was interested in Egyptology for a while.

i'm an atheist, but i also agree that Jesus did exist, was not the son of god, but was a cool character i would have liked to have known.