> > > ...now we need some other date for the doomsayers among us to get all worked up about. DID YOU KNOW:
> > >
> > > The year which most of us are currently calling 2000 is, in fact:
> > >
> > > 1997 dating from Christ's birth if the 4 BC theory is true;
> >
> > Er... wouldn't that mean that the current year (2000) is actually 2004? And if Christ was born during Caesar Augustus' census in 5-6 BC, then the current year ought to be 2005 or 2006?
>
> Nope, we're talking BC, not AD so go 4 years Prior to the time we think of as Jesus's birth (which would be 1 AD) so you subtract that from 2000, or 2001 if your one of those crazy "correct" Millennium people (like me)... you see? I'm afraid I'm not being very clear...reading back I don't even understand what I said, but oh well...I'm drugged today!

I think Wolf is right. In fact, that struck me as odd when I read it, but I was expecting someone else to bring it up sooner or later, so I never did.

If it's been 2000 years since the year 1 A.D., it has to have been more years, not fewer, since 4 B.C.