BC - AD

[korgul]

6239

The earliest Egyptian calendar was based on the moon's cycles, but later the Egyptians realized that the "Dog Star" in Canis Major, which we call Sirius, rose next to the sun every 365 days, about when the annual inundation of the Nile began. Based on this knowledge, they devised a 365-day calendar that seems to have begun in 4236 B.C., the earliest recorded year in history.


taken from here

http://timezone.123india.com/anical.html

with out looking it up I was going to say around 5000.

[nomaxim]

Originally posted by M_Six

Here's some food for thought. What if humanity had adopted a calendar based on actual time going back to the earliest recordings of time. What year would it be?

Umm, 6,000 +/- a couple of centuries. Or 5,947 BCE +/- 500 years. BCE begins in 1950 on our calander.

Originally posted by M_Six
Here's some food for thought. What if humanity had adopted a calendar based on actual time going back to the earliest recordings of time. What year would it be?

Well, that depends on what you believe about the formation of the earth and mankind.

Evolutionists would probably go by the first recorded marks made on trees or cave walls to mark time (if you want to start with mankind's history).

Creationists would look at the most likely date of Creation.

I have no way of telling who is correct apart from my internal belief system (called faith), so I'll leave this debate to those who want to continue it.

Cheers
Mick

BTW, as an aside, I don't really think Jesus was concerned about what year he was born in. He had other things to occupy him while he was alive.

[M_Six]

Interesting points, korgul and nomaxim. Hadn't thought of it that way. I was really thinking about a calendar that reaches back to the beginning. For instance, we know that pre-Cambrian time (when life began) was around 600 million years ago and on back. Could that be a logical starting point? How about the earliest appearance of a human being? Depends on your standard of human being, I guess.

In any case, I shouldn't be hijacking this thread. Back to our originally scheduled topic.

[nomaxim]

It's ACE (After Common Era) 53+/- 1! That would hold for whatever calander (Mayan, Egyptian,Jewish etc...) your using.

The +/-1 would depend on where during the year your calander has it's New Year start. The Common Era idea was designed for use by scientists from different cultures.

Oh, Theo, Christ would have been born between 1942 and 1947 BCE and would have died around 1920 BCE. The Common Era starts in our year 1950 AD.

!!Wow, The Common Era is set around the development of the Atom Bomb! Ain't that a thought.!!

[daveleau]

I don't quite get what you mean by your calendar, nomaxim.

Theophylact, there is no question that Jesus lived. You are free to question who he was, but there is a mountain of historical data that places Jesus in the Middle East.

[nomaxim]

"your calander" refers to whatever calander you are using Dave.

The Gregorain calander starts it's year on Jan 1. and is in the year 2003 AD.

The Chinese,Jewish, and other calander all start their year on a different date and also are in a different year. ( Don't know dates and years there).

Ex. Since all calander systems have set a 'Common Era' if I say 650 BCE that would be 1300 AD Gregorain.
If it's the year 4250 on the Chinese calander then 650 BCE would the year 3600. The Chinese person does NOT need to know what year the Gregorain calander is in to make reference to the year in the Chinese calander. All the Chinese person needs to know is that the common era starts in the Chinese year 4200.

Now imagine having a discussion with a Israeli Air Force officer about the intense war that Israel had in 5716. Or ACE 17 (1950+17=1967).

[osprey4]

Originally posted by korgul
I am curious as to why the years during his life are not counted. If they are then what are they known as AD or BC. Either one is not correct.

They are counted as AD. So if they has actually gotten it right and Jesus had been born in the year 1, then he would have died around the year 30.

BCE is generally used instead of BC, since you don't have to worry about adding another 2000. But CE seems to be catching on as a replacement for AD.

[Theophylact]

daveleau, my comment about the historicity of Jesus was a joke; although there is in fact essentially no contemporary record of his existence, I'm pretty sure that he -- or at least someone of the same name* -- existed.

As for CE: those of us who don't accept the divinity of Jesus prefer a more neutral dating convention, one that doesn't refer to something as having happened "in the year of the Lord" something-or-other. So as not to junk a widely accepted set of dates, practice among modern historians tends to be to accept "Common Era": same dates, different name.

*variation on a very old joke about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays

After 2000 years, a few people get all questiony and we trash the whole date system...

Bah... Just say no to BCE/CE!