Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi! Whaddaya mean that 1000 years have not passed? You just wrote that there was at least one year before the 1. Do you think that we still live in the ´nineties? Actually you can start your millennium anytime you like because from every point of time it is possible to count backwards 1000 years - or how many years you want. The same possibility was available to monk Dionysios Exiquus in AD 525 and pope Gregory. This is what I snipped from another list: "In English, according to the American Heritage College Dictionary: A millennium is any period of 1,000 years. The period can be measured from any starting point that you want. Using it to specify periods that begin with at midnight plus epsilon on 1 January of a "0 year" is a special case of the general definition. That's why this argument is such a hoot ... everyone is right. It's whichever millennium you decide you want it to be based on where you want to start measuring." All the best! Raimo Photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - ---------- > From: John Collier <jbcollier@home.com> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Millennium Greetings! > Date: 03. tammikuuta 2000 15:22 > > The Lord preserve me from starting silly threads. > > The common misconception about our present dating system is that there was a > year 0. The calendar was supposed to have started at the birth of JC but the > monk that started the whole thing had an incorrect time for JC's birthday. > His supposed birthday and the next year were the 1 AD, literally the "first > year of our Lord" (i.e. year 1). The year before his supposed birth was 1 > BC, the year before Christ. Reading the Bible carefully and examining Rome's > records, the present thinking is that JC showed up around 4 BC; the > millennium started 3 years ago!. So the whole thing gets a little silly but > let us put aside historical inaccuracies and back to other technical > silliness. Now though the new millennium has not started, as 2000 years have > not completely passed yet, we have all changed the date that we write quite > significantly and that is a good enough reason to party as far as I am > concerned. Though I am saving the really good stuff for next year. > > > John Collier > > Oops, I forgot to mention that JC's first birthday would have been in year 2 > day 1. The whole Xmas thing was an adopted previously pagan festival. > > > > > > Tim Atherton wrote: > > > >>>> Dan > >>>> > >>>> Whyever are you wishing us this a year early? > >>>> > >>>> Marc > >>>> > >> > >> Mind you, it is very unlikely that the historical Jesus was born in what is > >> our year 0 or 1 anyway, probably some time before, so we are all out of > >> whack anyway. Thanks to the early mis-calculators ;-) > >> > >> Tim A > >> > Mr. Schmidt wrote: > > What about this scenario? When JC was celebrating his first birthday > > (anniversary). The year was also called year one. We are right then to > > celebrate Y2k now. > > > > Regards, Horst Schmidt > >