hi,
I was watching a archeological programme recently and could not believe the latest lunacy from the pc brigade apparently the british museum and other similar establishments are being told to use the abbrieviation B P (before present ) rather than the established B C ( before christ ) in case this this upsets non christians, the world is going P C loony.
merry son of god mass to all forum users

I've sent an email to the british museum asking if it's true. Personaly I'm not bothered. I think it would be easier if they labeled thing along the time lines they come from. Mesolithic, Roman, Saxon, Tudor ect

it's BCE before common era. And CE Common Era.

It's nothing to do with upsetting any religious types. There are many very accurate records which have been unearthed from the Romans during the times when Christ was supposed to be around, and they don't match up with what has passed down to us as the biblical timescale. And indeed the year 1 couldn't be when Christ was born or 1 year old.
So there is little point of having 4 BC for before christ when we now know it was actually 8 years before him.

Also I might be wrong about this but I think scientists have used this standard dating system for decades, it's just that tv programmes and school books have only been doing it for the last 10 years.

Do you seriously believed that they decided to change the way dates are named because of the "PC brigade"?

Where are this mysterious institution? I'm sure I haven't seen any of their vans complete with blue flashing lights and siren. Or maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Is it one of the options when you dial 999? Police, Fire, Ambulance or PC Brigade?

Yep,

BCE has been around for a while now, and has been used by Christian and Jewish scholars to help cross-cultural dialogue run smoothly.

Like Muddycoffee said, it appears that as Christ was actually born in what we'd now call 4 or 5BC, the timing's a bit off anyway.

Joe

I am an archaeologist. And don't see a problem with the changes. Although I think BC is very useful and serves as a point of reference regarless of religion. BP might be more apt, and dating systems are always changing, people just don't like change.

However I don't think this will catch on, not for a long time, as BC is so useful. But at the end of the day does it really matter?

(zens partner posting)

what a blitheringly stupid idea - was it proposed by an oil company perhaps?

you have to start dating from somewhere and supposed birth of christ (or the time when rome first became supreme in the western world) seems a good a place to start as any.

Other cultures use other calenders - so I'd expect to be confused by the date when in other countries.

Part of original post by JoeP
--Like Muddycoffee said, it appears that as Christ was actually born in what we'd now call 4 or 5BC, the timing's a bit off anyway.
Huh! They'll be saying that he wasn't born on the 25th of December next! ;)

Originally posted by Bic0
Huh! They'll be saying that he wasn't born on the 25th of December next! ;)
They might even start saying he doesn't come down our chimneys with presents!

Originally posted by Yodameister
They might even start saying he doesn't come down our chimneys with presents!
Erm... Didn't that job go to a be-whiskered, fat, jolly guy in a red suit??

The term BC doesn't upset not Christians anyway (except maybe Jews). Other major religions accept that Jesus exsisted.

there isnt any doubt that jesus existed (he was referenced in roman documents of the time)
the religious question is whether he was christ or not.

so perhaps (to be fair to all) we should rename it to BJ :P

Originally posted by Yodameister
They might even start saying he doesn't come down our chimneys with presents!
nominated for post of the month...

Well I think that CE is better than AD.

AD ( anno domini ) is Latin, we speak English.

What's happened to the op? Why has he not come back and admitted that this was just another wind up story about the pc brigade and christianity?

i heard yesterday that a register office had been asked to remove wedding photo's from its walls incase it offended gays

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

the worlds going mad:|

Kirky - stop winding them up. :nono:
Bad Kirky ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Kirky - stop winding them up. :nono:
Bad Kirky ;)

No, he's right:

Ananova (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1607705.html?menu=news.quirkies)

Good kirky. :nod:

It doesn't really matter as long as things are referenced to a specific point in time. the problem arises when you use BP (before present) because your reference point is constantly changing, what's 50 years BP now will be 100years BP in 50 years time, a recipe for confusion!

Originally posted by max
No, he's right:

Ananova (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1607705.html?menu=news.quirkies)

Good kirky. :nod:

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Ahh! I take it back. :D Utterly ridiculous!

Mind you, what should you expect from the Loony Left of Liverpool. :hihi:

Originally posted by Tony
Mind you, what should you expect from the Loony Left of Liverpool. :hihi:

Yeah.........What ever happen to Derek Hatton?? Is he ensconced in some euro gravy boat, or cemented to the bottom of the Manchester Ship Canal?

I'd like to see a date system without a year zero that occurs in the middle of recorded history.

Since there was no history fixed to an actual year before the last Ice Age (~10,000 years ago) I think we should take an arbitary year at about the end of the Ice Age and call that year zero. So this year would be 12005.

Thus the earliest recorded date, from Egyptian history, would be: 5759

First Olympic games: 9224

Birth of this Jesus fellow would be around 10000

It puts things in perspective and makes things easier to calculate and I'm sticking to it.

Think I shall stick to BC and AD. Everyone else can do whatever they like - makes no odds to me.

I did get momentarily confused when I dirst saw 960bce but it was a passing thing.

Its nearly 2006 AD

Dragon

Originally posted by kirky
i heard yesterday that a register office had been asked to remove wedding photo's from its walls incase it offended gays

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

the worlds going mad:|

They have been moved to a more prominent position in the reception area.

Hardly removed then ?

Originally posted by Norbert
I'd like to see a date system without a year zero that occurs in the middle of recorded history.

They don't use a 0

It goes 1 BC (BCE) straight to 1 AD (CE)

Knowing that this subject would one day come up, 4 years ago I invented this web page to help everyone with some of the different calendars which are in use today

Other Calendars (http://www.rocknroll.f9.co.uk/advice/calendarsys.html)

So what happened to the time between 1bc and 1 ad? Did we lose it? That's a two year gap isn't it?

Who stole the year zero? Or did nothing of any interest happen at that time.

Maybe we should start up a movement to reclaim the stolen year?

Dragon

Originally posted by Dragon
So what happened to the time between 1bc and 1 ad? Did we lose it? That's a two year gap isn't it?

Who stole the year zero? Or did nothing of any interest happen at that time.

Maybe we should start up a movement to reclaim the stolen year?

Dragon

Don't forget all these calendars only came into being centuries after the actual events. The people of europe of the time would have had only the roman calendars, based upon the year of reign of the emporor.

My estimation is that the modern calendar was only generally recognised in Britain by most of the people who could read and write ( a small section of the population ) approximately 1000 years ago.
I am not sure if the concept of 0 as a value was used then.

No news about the claendar going decimal then? A ten month year?

Seems the last time we changed calendars there was some considerable upset - something about workers going to bed on a tuesday and waking up on a friday the following day so they effectively lost a few days wages.

Still think we have been conned out of at least a year.

Dragon

Originally posted by Dragon
So what happened to the time between 1bc and 1 ad? Did we lose it? That's a two year gap isn't it?

Who stole the year zero? Or did nothing of any interest happen at that time.

Maybe we should start up a movement to reclaim the stolen year?

Dragon

Christ was born in 1 a.d
Christ was conceived in 1 b.c or BCE

There is no year Zero (unless you happen to have lived in Cambodia during Pol Pot's regime).

I want the year I spent working at the DWP back, please.

BC/AD is an outdated way of referring to the past. It is a totally artificial device relevant only to the fraction of the planet's population that practices Christianity. Imagine the uproar today if Tony Blair decided that from now on we should have a new fixed point...BB/AB perhaps...?! I realise Blair ain't Christ (except possibly in his own mind) but it's no less ridicuous in principle than fixing it on the supposed year of death of some religious nutter (remember folks, Jesus was the bin Laden of his day to many people!).

Having said that, BP doesn't work as a replacement - dates would be constantly shifting. So we need a fixed point to count from...and the death of a fanatic's as good as any other :p

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I want the year I spent working at the DWP back, please.
So do I.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Norbert
I'd like to see a date system without a year zero that occurs in the middle of recorded history.

Since there was no history fixed to an actual year before the last Ice Age (~10,000 years ago) I think we should take an arbitary year at about the end of the Ice Age and call that year zero. So this year would be 12005.

Thus the earliest recorded date, from Egyptian history, would be: 5759

First Olympic games: 9224

Birth of this Jesus fellow would be around 10000

It puts things in perspective and makes things easier to calculate and I'm sticking to it.

how come my son came home from school and said dinasaurs were made extinct 2 million yeas ago?????? 30 yeas ago i was told the exact same thing.......whats happening to our education department,even i know that means dinasaurs must have been made extinct 2 million AND 30 years ago...:rolleyes:

BC/AD is an outdated way of referring to the past. It is a totally artificial device relevant only to the fraction of the planet's population that practices Christianity.

I do not know many people who would consider me to be either a christian or influenced by christianity. If you want to be english and proper about it all then go back to using the lunar calendar as we originally did.

Personally I will stick to using BC/AD as they are point in time that have some relevance. The reason why we use them is not important surely? Changing them about is only going to annoy some folk and be ignored by others.

Dragon

Originally posted by RichF
(remember folks, Jesus was the bin Laden of his day to many people!).




Yes, there are numerous accounts in the Gospels of Jesus Christ killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent people (yet despite my continued studying of them, I can't find any. Infact, when Peter cut off the ear of a Servant of the High Priest who had come to arrest Jesus, he 'touched his ear and healed him' [Luke 22:51]).

Some Bin Laden!

You may ofcause, be referring to the fact that many hated him and wanted him killed. But that does not put him in the same bracket as scum like Bin Laden.

Not the brightest comment IMO.

Originally posted by cloudybay
Yeah.........What ever happen to Derek Hatton?? Is he ensconced in some euro gravy boat, or cemented to the bottom of the Manchester Ship Canal?

Last I heard (many years ago) he had a big house in Childwall

Originally posted by Ousetunes
You may ofcause, be referring to the fact that many hated him [Jesus] and wanted him killed.

Yes, I think (I hope) that was the point he was trying to make...

Ousetunes,

My point is that to the Roman and Jewish authorities Jesus WAS considered to be a dangerous religious fanatic closely tied to a sect that espoused violence as a method of overthrowing the established order. It's perfectly valid to draw a comparison between the way the authorities saw Jesus then and the way they see Bin Laden now.

Had I suggested that Jesus shared the same motives and methods as Bin Laden your post would have had some value. As I didn't, it is Originally posted by Ousetunes
Not the brightest comment IMO.

Originally posted by RichF
Ousetunes,

My point is that to the Roman and Jewish authorities Jesus WAS considered to be a dangerous religious fanatic closely tied to a sect that espoused violence as a method of overthrowing the established order. It's perfectly valid to draw a comparison between the way the authorities saw Jesus then and the way they see Bin Laden now.

Had I suggested that Jesus shared the same motives and methods as Bin Laden your post would have had some value. As I didn't, it is

Point taken RichF. I withdraw that final comment with apologies.

aaaww...must you? i was just getting warmed up for a good arguement! :)

I still reckon your comments were made to be inflammatory RichF.

Also think your liking Jesus to Bin Laden is a bit ridiculous - no matter what point you was trying to get across. Jesus, as I recall, did not incite any kind of violence. He did not support it in any way - unlike the other.

If you are going to flame then at least choose something decent to flame about rather than making silly asides about a religion you obviously have no respect for.

Dragon

Originally posted by RichF
Imagine the uproar today if Tony Blair decided that from now on we should have a new fixed point...BB/AB perhaps...?! I realise Blair ain't Christ (except possibly in his own mind)...

Don't give the boy any ideas :nono:

1997AD may soon become 0BB (Before Blair)

Originally posted by kirky
how come my son came home from school and said dinasaurs were made extinct 2 million yeas ago?????? 30 yeas ago i was told the exact same thing.......whats happening to our education department,even i know that means dinasaurs must have been made extinct 2 million AND 30 years ago...:rolleyes:


From the Goons:

Seagoon (on an archaeological dig) "Good god, this Dinosaur is five million million years old! "
(Chorus in background) "Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you ....."

On 11/11/05, Hannah Boulton <HBOULTON@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear Sir

The British Museum currently uses the prefix BC and has no intention of changing this in the immediate future.

Best

Hannah

Hannah Boulton
Communications Manager
British Museum
Great Russell St
London, WC1B 3DG
020 7323 8522
hboulton@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk


This is the reply to the emailI sent last night to the british museum asking if they had changed to prefix due to concerns about offending other religious groups.

Yay for the British Museum.

Support AD/BC. Its a British Institution. ;)

Dragon

Originally posted by Dragon
Yay for the British Museum.

Support AD/BC. Its a British Institution. ;)

Dragon

European institution I would have said and adopted by Britain some time after the rest of Europe.

From A brief history of the calendar (http://www.exovedate.com/a_history_of_the_calendar.html)

This bit:

The origins of the calendar which we use today are often credited to the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who lived in the middle of the 6th century, however this is inaccurate. Exiguus was concerned, as were other theological scholars of his day, with the correct date of Easter. Also, in his day, years were often cited as A.D., meaning after the emperor Diocletian. Dionysius desired to change this fact, as Diocletian was a notorious persecutor of Christians during his rule from 284 to 305 CE. In his calculations, he also explored a determination of the date for the birth of Christ. He placed this date, probably wrongly, as the eighth day before the Calends of January in the year 753 ab urbe conditâ, that is, 753 years after the founding of Rome. Hence the Calends of January in 754 ab urbe conditâ became the first day of A.D. 1. He called the years following Christ's birth years "of the Lord", which became Anno Domini or A.D., and the years preceding Ante Christum or A.C. The term B.C. is usually credited to Saint Bede, an English monk, who in 731, used it in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People. So Exiguus had little or nothing to do with reforming the mechanics of the calendar per se, rather, he is partly responsible for the system of how we number our years.
While no one person can be credited with devising the calendar, the system which we use today most resemble that devised by the 1st Cen. BCE Greek scholar Sosigenes, as the Gregorian and Christian reforms were arguably minor in comparison to his work.
The majority of scholars today no longer use the terms A.D. or B.C., we instead use the terms BCE and CE, which mean Before Common Era, (some say "Current Era") and Common Era, respectively. This is done in order to use objective, non-denominational terms.

shows that the term Current Era is used by scholars.

Pc brigade gone mad with our history yet again

Can we change this or close the thread as it's not true and there is no PC bogeyman trying to change history

Originally posted by Yodameister
Is it one of the options when you dial 999? Police, Fire, Ambulance or PC Brigade?

I thought it was 112 (or 122) now:hihi:

All very PC. All very European.

Slimsid, explain to me what is politically correct about having two numbers for the emergency services? Perhaps when someone is saving your life by phoning them you won't be so picky?

Originally posted by cloudybay
Yeah.........What ever happen to Derek Hatton??
Last time I saw him he was sharing a platform at a protest rally with another left-wing firebrand called Blunkett. Now whatever became of him I wonder??