If memory serves, there is no 0 A.D. or 0 B.C.. So Janurary 1, 1 A.D. was the first day of the first year after the birth of Jesus (that's Jesus, the Christ, son of God, our lord and saviour - not Jesus Gonzales, 2711 N. Holly St., Austin, TX). Therefor December 31, 1 B.C. is the day before Jan. 1, 1 A.D.. Yet this is clearly after the designated birthday of Jesus; Dec. 25 and therefor cannot be accurately be call Before Christ.
So how do historians designate any important events that happened during this six day period. Not that there very many, with due deference, of course, to Mary's coming home from the hospital... err, manger... shower. For that matter how do they desginate the actual day of christ's birth, would that be D.D. - Dieo Domini for day of our lord, or would that be A.C. for At Christ.
And whats the deal with one acronym being latin and the other not. For those that are wondering, and they must number in the thousands, if not millions, i suppose the latin equivalent to B.C. would be P.D. for Preeo Domini - before our Lord.
The A.D./B.C. system is no longer used. The current system designates the same periods as C.E. and B.C.E. -- common era and before common era. But you have uncovered a historical problem.
Posted by: llogg | April 26, 2006 at 06:30 AM
So glad you brought that up. :)
What does the 'common' mean in common era? Did people B.C.E. live in diffent era's like time zones or something? And if they where going to change the name why not go ahead and add a year zero, it would make the math straight foward. Further more, why not change the zero year away from a religous event to a more worldly one like the founding of Ur, or the first meeting of 'east' and 'west', or perhaps some astrological event, like the axial alignment of the earth, sun, and moon with the galaxy.
While i'm at it, let's go ahead and revamp the entire calander. In fact i'm gonna make an entire post on this.
Posted by: MathJames | April 26, 2006 at 07:22 AM
If your calendar is going to be any good, it needs to remove the requirement for minute corrections in the length of the year that we currently perform from time to time.
And feel free to create your own units of time. Don't be shackled by hours, minutes, and seconds.
Posted by: tom | April 26, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Uhhhh....
Short of changing Earth's orbit, i don't see how i could get around that requisite.
But, i'll definitely take your engouragement to fiddle with the time units as well. :)
Posted by: MathJames | April 26, 2006 at 08:45 AM
Man, I suck at spelling!
Posted by: MathJames | April 26, 2006 at 08:46 AM
The new ecpox will be exactly 9 bidops long, beginning on the 1st of Turd and ending on the 47th of Tittyfuck.
Posted by: Jake | April 26, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Terd Furgeson was here.
Posted by: | April 26, 2006 at 10:57 AM
I think the Vietnamese begin counting age at 1, so when you're born you are 1, not 1 week old. (I think it's the Vietnamese, might be some other Asian country.) I know this because I like Asian women. Anyways, that -may- be why AD starts at one. Or maybe someone had an "off-one" error, I know I NEVER have those! teehee
And I think when the metric system was first proposed they thought of doing a metric time system but it was never implemented.
Posted by: Lance | April 26, 2006 at 04:00 PM
I love finding comments on other people's blogs that were meant to make me laugh.
Posted by: Ojo Rojo | April 26, 2006 at 09:58 PM