> > > > > > > > Sure, I have more than a year to think about it. :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nyper"2001: A Disk Space Odyssey"old
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, okay, okay. You got me there:-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I meant to say was: what is everyone planning to do for the year 2000?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -M"RinkForum: not just for nitpickers anymore"el
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmmm... maybe I'll go down to my usual place of worship for that. Hey, I'll probably be there Fri. night anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nyperold
> > > > >

> > > > I don't know when it was decided which year would be 1, but I'm sure that it was determined well after the fact, since it's entirely based upon the birth of Christ and few people actually knew it took place at the time.
> > > > So, the year 2000 is actually the last year of the second millennium, which began in 1001.
> > > > Although, the change from having the year always begin with a '19' to having it begin with '20', is quite monumental in itself. --Just ask a computer.
> > > >
> > > > Tra "Y2K? -Y not" nio
> > >
> > > Interesting tidbit: About ten years or so ago it was determined that Christ was actually born in 5 or 6 BC.
> > >
> > > -M"ironic, huh?"el
> > >
> >
> > OK, the person who created our AD-BC thing based it on the birth of Christ. Even though he got the exact time wrong, he thought he was right, and he obviously didn't think Jesus was born a year old, so he must have started in the year zero. Counting from zero goes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. That's a zero-through-nine counting scheme, not a one-through-ten. Therefore, 200 really IS the last year of the millenium.
> >
> > -Dr. Morris Cecil "Disagree with ME?! How dare you! A pox on your Mr. Twiddle!" Glalet, Th.D.
>
> Actually, no. According to our system of time keeping, there is no year 0. It was determined shortly after the calendar became widely adopted that it was about 4 years off the mark, meaning according to our calendar, Jesus was born 4 B.C. This means that he turned 4 in 1 A.D. Besides, if there was a year 0 then it couldn't be classified as either AD or BC so it still wouldn't fall under the first millinium.
>
> Shan-Fountain of useless knowledge. I should have been on Jeopardy-dar

Curious. Judging from the above assertions, it seems agreed that Christ was actually born in "B.C." times, a little bit before the Year 1 by which we traditionally mark his birth. But where do those 4 B.C. and 5-6 B.C. estimates come from? I've been hearing the 5-6 B.C. date more and more often. Is there new research to support that finding?

Wolf "archeology or astrometrics?" spirit