> > > > ...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.

Hehe. My mistake. That list came from the book "The Calendar" by David Ewing Duncan, which is an awesomely interesting book which everyone should read, but I've said it before... don't ask me to answer any questions involving numbers.

Brunnen-"I have to take my shoes off to count past ten"G