Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'll accept that because you say so, but this:I agree with what you have said here but none of that contradicts anything that I said.
...calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.
I don't honestly think it's an attempt to remove Christ from the dating scheme. In my own book I prefer BCE and CE, for Before the Common Era and of the Common Era, because Christ wasn't born in 1 CE. He was born at least two or three years earlier. Ergo, AD and BC are misnomers. The BCE and CE acronyms are more academically accurate.I am sure this has been around a while but,
I have just recently noticed in a lot of dictionaries online they replace BC and AD with BCE(before current events) and CE (current events)....I didn't realize it had escalated that quickly to remove Christ from the mind of this world....scary. Lord have mercy.
There is also BP; that is years before present. Early writing began about 5000 BP or 3000 BC/BCE depending on what dating convention you use.I am sure this has been around a while but,
I have just recently noticed in a lot of dictionaries online they replace BC and AD with BCE(before current events) and CE (current events)....I didn't realize it had escalated that quickly to remove Christ from the mind of this world....scary. Lord have mercy.
Again, I use the BCE/CE acronyms because they are more academically appropriate. The first year of our common era is not the year of our Lord 1. And frankly, I think the nit-picking is on the part of those insisting on BC and AD. As you say, we know what the calendar is based on, and we know that it is in error. So why make a stink about the acronym? It doesn't bother me if someone uses BC/AD, and it shouldn't bother them if I use BCE/CE.But we would have to be picking nits to argue, seriously, that the conventional and historic system known the world over needs to be changed merely because Christ was born two years earlier than the calendar suggests. And the fact that his birth was several years earlier has been known for a long time, anyway.
No one even thinks of this trivia, even while most of us do realize that the dating system relates to the life of Christ.
IMO, that's rather a strange way to argue on behalf of a change that is, after all is said and done, little more than change for change's sake.As you say, we know what the calendar is based on, and we know that it is in error. So why make a stink about the acronym? .
The reason the change is not absurd is that AD is for Anno Domini Nostri. The year of our Lord. The first "year of our Lord" is not the first year of the common era. Neither is the first year before the common era the first year before Christ.This particular change .... BC/AD to BCE/CE was absurd. It says more about the insecurity of scientists, than it does about logic. BTW, I am a scientist.
I suggest that you keep using BC and AD. And if anyone tries to correct you, tell them that your system is "more accurate". Because it is (in a way) ... it is tied to the birth of Christ. The CE system is not anchored to anything, if they reject Christ then they have no starting point !!
Maybe they want to change it because it was too hard for Christians to understand. BC cant be "before Christ", While AD is "after death"........What? would that give Christ a year of life?
And why pick a moment of time and try to say that Christ was not here before then anyway? I say Christ was present on the earth before "BC"
You have shown me the error in my ways...... I foolishly assume that the op did not know what AD stood for.....just like you have foolishly assumed the same of me.Strangely BC=Before Christ while AD= Anno Domini (year of the Lord)
BC cant be "before Christ", While AD is "after death"........What? would that give Christ a year of life?
And it cometh to pass, in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, gone up hath Shishak king of Egypt against Jerusalem,
Anno Domini, the year of our Lord, counts time in relation to Christ's reign. In times past, the years were numbered according to the reign of various kings. For example:
1 Kings 14:25
By using the term A.D. we suggest that we are currently living during the reign of Christ. That makes it a sort of Amillennial perspective.
Honestly, I just cannot bring myself to regard as Christian anyone who would insist on divorcing the enumeration from the reign of Christ upon whom it is based.
I always thought "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" where inconsistent and this is why many think AD is "after death" trying to somehow reconcile the language conflicts. I really have no issue with BCE and CE as regardless which term you use they are all marked by Christ. It is also arbitrary for us to demand Christian culture over societies as having it or not having is no longer anything to do with the Gospel.I am sure this has been around a while but,
I have just recently noticed in a lot of dictionaries online they replace BC and AD with BCE(before current events) and CE (current events)....I didn't realize it had escalated that quickly to remove Christ from the mind of this world....scary. Lord have mercy.
I am sure this has been around a while but,
I have just recently noticed in a lot of dictionaries online they replace BC and AD with BCE(before current events) and CE (current events)....I didn't realize it had escalated that quickly to remove Christ from the mind of this world....scary. Lord have mercy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?