|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 29, 2023 22:01:41 GMT
Indeed however I new what BC meant very early on but not clear what AD meant except it denoted the years after Christ was born. These were fixed points with easy definitions that I understood. The time frames have not changed all that has happened is that Christ has been removed from the definition details. To me that was unimportant as it was a measure just as a yard was once from the King's nose to his fingertips if one was a republican one would not wish to change the yard or deny its origins. What I am missing is why it was changed which no one seems able to clear up. My guess it was appeasement of other religious groups which at best seems totally unsatisfactory. At some point it became apparent that the biblical descriptions of the birth of Jesus, ie, Herod's lifetime and the census during the period when Cyrenius was governor of Syria cannot all align in the year 0. At that point, common sense required a correction, because it's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born before (or after) the calendar says he was. Perhaps that's why the traditional terms gradually fell out of favour and the other system gained more traction. I am really not interested, or contesting what the measure represents, the point is was it clearly defined in the context in which it was used. If it was then why change from BC to BCE, it is not for simplicity, therefore it must be for some other reason. That realistically can only be the removal of Christ from the definition and as an Atheist I can see no reason for that as its historic definition is of little import to me but must have been seen as important to someone either from that groups own statements or some belief in being inclusive whilst in the same instant as adopting inclusiveness excluding others. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 29, 2023 22:21:07 GMT
At some point it became apparent that the biblical descriptions of the birth of Jesus, ie, Herod's lifetime and the census during the period when Cyrenius was governor of Syria cannot all align in the year 0. At that point, common sense required a correction, because it's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born before (or after) the calendar says he was. Perhaps that's why the traditional terms gradually fell out of favour and the other system gained more traction. I am really not interested, or contesting what the measure represents, the point is was it clearly defined in the context in which it was used. If it was then why change from BC to BCE, it is not for simplicity, therefore it must be for some other reason. That realistically can only be the removal of Christ from the definition and as an Atheist I can see no reason for that as its historic definition is of little import to me but must have been seen as important to someone either from that groups own statements or some belief in being inclusive whilst in the same instant as adopting inclusiveness excluding others. I think it was clearly defined for Christians who relied on their faith and were willing to overlook the date discrepancy. The only other way to fix it whilst keeping the date linked to the birth of Jesus would have been to change the calendar so that BC rolled over to AD a few years earlier (or later), and that would have been hugely impractical. Renaming the system avoids having to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 30, 2023 9:14:01 GMT
I am really not interested, or contesting what the measure represents, the point is was it clearly defined in the context in which it was used. If it was then why change from BC to BCE, it is not for simplicity, therefore it must be for some other reason. That realistically can only be the removal of Christ from the definition and as an Atheist I can see no reason for that as its historic definition is of little import to me but must have been seen as important to someone either from that groups own statements or some belief in being inclusive whilst in the same instant as adopting inclusiveness excluding others. I think it was clearly defined for Christians who relied on their faith and were willing to overlook the date discrepancy. The only other way to fix it whilst keeping the date linked to the birth of Jesus would have been to change the calendar so that BC rolled over to AD a few years earlier (or later), and that would have been hugely impractical. Renaming the system avoids having to do that. For those of us who just used it as a point in time the discrepancy was irrelevant because the measure was clear. I am not contesting all the other guff all that I am interested in is why we should change from a simple workable system in common use and clear in its definitions to one that is slightly more cumbersome and becomes a bit of a mouthful when being used quickly as in BC to BCE and if one uses the full name instead of the short capitals it sounds just wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 30, 2023 15:20:28 GMT
I think it was clearly defined for Christians who relied on their faith and were willing to overlook the date discrepancy. The only other way to fix it whilst keeping the date linked to the birth of Jesus would have been to change the calendar so that BC rolled over to AD a few years earlier (or later), and that would have been hugely impractical. Renaming the system avoids having to do that. For those of us who just used it as a point in time the discrepancy was irrelevant because the measure was clear. I am not contesting all the other guff all that I am interested in is why we should change from a simple workable system in common use and clear in its definitions to one that is slightly more cumbersome and becomes a bit of a mouthful when being used quickly as in BC to BCE and if one uses the full name instead of the short capitals it sounds just wrong. But you're not being compelled to use BCE/CE. You can opt out and you will still generally be understood using BC/AD, except, perhaps, by the Millennial generation. I know it's an annoyance, but how often does it crop up ? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 30, 2023 15:30:50 GMT
Things change. Rail passengers become customers, wine is likely to be sold in pints, and cyclists, scooter riders with L plates and electric bikes are all immune from prosecution for not following the Highway Code...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Dec 30, 2023 16:04:51 GMT
If we had a more Christian country it would never had been allowed , we don't though so it has been .Church leaders made some noise in 2012 when the new terms started to be used in education but their complaints were ignored .
What started as a PC directive from the offended on other peoples behalf society has somehow become the norm in written works . Does it matter ?
No not really but give these feckers a inch and they will take a meter
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 30, 2023 16:38:47 GMT
Things change. Rail passengers become customers, wine is likely to be sold in pints, and cyclists, scooter riders with L plates and electric bikes are all immune from prosecution for not following the Highway Code... I'm currently reading a Bill Bryson book on Shakespeare, in which he mentions that wine was sold by the pint in London in Shakespeare's day. Some trends come and go and return again, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 30, 2023 17:28:55 GMT
For those of us who just used it as a point in time the discrepancy was irrelevant because the measure was clear. I am not contesting all the other guff all that I am interested in is why we should change from a simple workable system in common use and clear in its definitions to one that is slightly more cumbersome and becomes a bit of a mouthful when being used quickly as in BC to BCE and if one uses the full name instead of the short capitals it sounds just wrong. But you're not being compelled to use BCE/CE. You can opt out and you will still generally be understood using BC/AD, except, perhaps, by the Millennial generation. I know it's an annoyance, but how often does it crop up ? This is one time when there is no need with any sensible assessment of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 30, 2023 17:51:40 GMT
Things change. Rail passengers become customers, wine is likely to be sold in pints, and cyclists, scooter riders with L plates and electric bikes are all immune from prosecution for not following the Highway Code... And like everything there are reasons presented or because people stop doing something out of a choice. Someone and it is not known if was a secularist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Christian decided that Christ should not be used in a universal system of dating history and managed to inveigle a change in the accepted wording to make it more inclusive in teh process managing to further alienate those who see no reason to change. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 30, 2023 17:55:10 GMT
Things change. Rail passengers become customers, wine is likely to be sold in pints, and cyclists, scooter riders with L plates and electric bikes are all immune from prosecution for not following the Highway Code... I'm currently reading a Bill Bryson book on Shakespeare, in which he mentions that wine was sold by the pint in London in Shakespeare's day. Some trends come and go and return again, I suppose. Hanging, drawing and quartering was still pretty popular then as well. Usually things disappear for a reason either moral or simplification or standardisation BC and AD were already standardised throughout the Western world. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 30, 2023 22:01:35 GMT
Things change. Rail passengers become customers, wine is likely to be sold in pints, and cyclists, scooter riders with L plates and electric bikes are all immune from prosecution for not following the Highway Code... And like everything there are reasons presented or because people stop doing something out of a choice. Someone and it is not known if was a secularist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Christian decided that Christ should not be used in a universal system of dating history and managed to inveigle a change in the accepted wording to make it more inclusive in teh process managing to further alienate those who see no reason to change. Indeed, and that is what happened when the anno domini system itself was developed to replace another system that is still to this day being used by a branch of Christianity. The inventor of the anno domini dating system for the Gregorian and Julian calendars was a 6th century Eastern Roman monk named Dionysius Exiguus, who said the present year was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". His purpose was to replace the Diocletian years that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The Diocletian era, aka Era of the Martyrs is a method of numbering years based on the reign of Roman Emperor Diocletian who instigated the last major persecution against Christians in the Empire. It was used by the Church of Alexandria beginning in the 4th century AD and it has been used by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria from the 5th century until the present. This era was used to number the year in Easter tables produced by the Church of Alexandria.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_the_MartyrsDionysius copied the last decennovenal cycle of the Cyrillian table ending with Diocletian 247, and then added a new 95-year table with numbered Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. The only reason he gave for beginning his new 95-year table with the year 532 was that six years were still left in the Cyrillian table after the year during which he wrote. For the current year he only stated that it was 525 years after the Incarnation of Christ, without stating when this event occurred in any other calendar. Evidence exists that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time, some believed that the Second Coming and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. So you see, the anno domini calendar itself was an arbitrary effort to replace a prior calendar which is still in use by a branch of the church today. The different branches of Christians can't even agree on the calendar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 30, 2023 22:22:55 GMT
And like everything there are reasons presented or because people stop doing something out of a choice. Someone and it is not known if was a secularist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Christian decided that Christ should not be used in a universal system of dating history and managed to inveigle a change in the accepted wording to make it more inclusive in teh process managing to further alienate those who see no reason to change. Indeed, and that is what happened when the anno domini system itself was developed to replace another system that is still to this day being used by a branch of Christianity. The inventor of the anno domini dating system for the Gregorian and Julian calendars was a 6th century Eastern Roman monk named Dionysius Exiguus, who said the present year was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". His purpose was to replace the Diocletian years that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The Diocletian era, aka Era of the Martyrs is a method of numbering years based on the reign of Roman Emperor Diocletian who instigated the last major persecution against Christians in the Empire. It was used by the Church of Alexandria beginning in the 4th century AD and it has been used by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria from the 5th century until the present. This era was used to number the year in Easter tables produced by the Church of Alexandria.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_the_MartyrsDionysius copied the last decennovenal cycle of the Cyrillian table ending with Diocletian 247, and then added a new 95-year table with numbered Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. The only reason he gave for beginning his new 95-year table with the year 532 was that six years were still left in the Cyrillian table after the year during which he wrote. For the current year he only stated that it was 525 years after the Incarnation of Christ, without stating when this event occurred in any other calendar. Evidence exists that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time, some believed that the Second Coming and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. So you see, the anno domini calendar itself was an arbitrary effort to replace a prior calendar which is still in use by a branch of the church today. The different branches of Christians can't even agree on the calendar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_ExiguusOnce again, why bring Christian arguments into it. How a system came into being is largely of no import, just as the length of the King's arm is not now relevant to the yard, what matters is we used the said system well into the 21st century with no problems and with broadly universal acceptance of its measure. Why change it to a more cumbersome thing which is identical to what was measured before. We replaced the yard with the metre but they were different units and we had to come to terms with the slight variation, all we have to do with BC and BCE is accept that BCE is longer as a way of saying the same thing which for succinctness, it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 30, 2023 22:49:20 GMT
Indeed, and that is what happened when the anno domini system itself was developed to replace another system that is still to this day being used by a branch of Christianity. The inventor of the anno domini dating system for the Gregorian and Julian calendars was a 6th century Eastern Roman monk named Dionysius Exiguus, who said the present year was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". His purpose was to replace the Diocletian years that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The Diocletian era, aka Era of the Martyrs is a method of numbering years based on the reign of Roman Emperor Diocletian who instigated the last major persecution against Christians in the Empire. It was used by the Church of Alexandria beginning in the 4th century AD and it has been used by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria from the 5th century until the present. This era was used to number the year in Easter tables produced by the Church of Alexandria.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_the_MartyrsDionysius copied the last decennovenal cycle of the Cyrillian table ending with Diocletian 247, and then added a new 95-year table with numbered Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. The only reason he gave for beginning his new 95-year table with the year 532 was that six years were still left in the Cyrillian table after the year during which he wrote. For the current year he only stated that it was 525 years after the Incarnation of Christ, without stating when this event occurred in any other calendar. Evidence exists that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time, some believed that the Second Coming and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. So you see, the anno domini calendar itself was an arbitrary effort to replace a prior calendar which is still in use by a branch of the church today. The different branches of Christians can't even agree on the calendar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_ExiguusOnce again, why bring Christian arguments into it. How a system came into being is largely of no import, just as the length of the King's arm is not now relevant to the yard, what matters is we used the said system well into the 21st century with no problems and with broadly universal acceptance of its measure. Why change it to a more cumbersome thing which is identical to what was measured before. We replaced the yard with the metre but they were different units and we had to come to terms with the slight variation, all we have to do with BC and BCE is accept that BCE is longer as a way of saying the same thing which for succinctness, it isn't. The point I'm making is that the way your preferred system originated parallels the advent of the BCE/CE system. Both the anno domini system and the BCE/CE system replaced a prior system that had been in place, and both these new systems met with resistance. The Diocletian system has remained in place since the 5th century because a branch of the church didn't want to give it up. Not everyone likes change. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 31, 2023 0:20:09 GMT
Things change. Rail passengers become customers, wine is likely to be sold in pints, and cyclists, scooter riders with L plates and electric bikes are all immune from prosecution for not following the Highway Code... I'm currently reading a Bill Bryson book on Shakespeare, in which he mentions that wine was sold by the pint in London in Shakespeare's day. Some trends come and go and return again, I suppose. But are we sure a pint then is the same as today’s pint? For instance, a gallon of corn had different cubic capacity from a gallon of ale (282 cubic inches), which was different from a gallon of wine (231 cubic inches). Other liquids were more consistent. The terminology was the same as the Apothecaries weights, but with 20 minims equal to 1 fluid scruple, 3 fluid scruples to the fluid dram, 8 drams to the fluid ounce, 5 fluid drams to the gill, and four gills to the gallon. For grain and other dry goods, 4 gills equalled a pint, 2 pints were a quart, and 4 quarts were gallon. Then there’s US pints and gallons… |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 31, 2023 13:47:30 GMT
I'm currently reading a Bill Bryson book on Shakespeare, in which he mentions that wine was sold by the pint in London in Shakespeare's day. Some trends come and go and return again, I suppose. But are we sure a pint then is the same as today’s pint? For instance, a gallon of corn had different cubic capacity from a gallon of ale (282 cubic inches), which was different from a gallon of wine (231 cubic inches). Other liquids were more consistent. The terminology was the same as the Apothecaries weights, but with 20 minims equal to 1 fluid scruple, 3 fluid scruples to the fluid dram, 8 drams to the fluid ounce, 5 fluid drams to the gill, and four gills to the gallon. For grain and other dry goods, 4 gills equalled a pint, 2 pints were a quart, and 4 quarts were gallon. Then there’s US pints and gallons… Yes, there is that. In the 18th century, a Scottish pint was the equivalent of three English pints. We live in an ever changing world. scottishantiques.com/scottish-fluid-measures |
|
