[NTLUG:Discuss] Millinneum rant

[al_h@technologist.com]

Christopher Browne wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:15:58 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
> al_h at technologist.com  said:
> > Christopher Browne wrote:
> >  .
> > .
> >  .
> > .
> > > It's more arbitrary than that; "A.D." rather refers to "Anno Domini,"
> > > which is more reasonably interpreted as "After His Ascention."
> >
> > How about an -Accurate- interpretation, or does that count?
>
> The *literal* translation is roughly "The year of the Lord."
>
> This still leaves open for argument whether the counting should begin:
> a) The date He was born;
> b) The date He was first *recognized* as Lord, which would be somewhere
>    around his thirtieth year;
> c) The date at which he became the Resurrected Lord...
>
> Unfortunately, it is not evident that "year 0" in the old Julian calendar
> could have represented any of these dates, which is unfortunately
> injurious to the notion of A.D. represnting a particularly "accurate"
> epoch representation.
>
> If you are inclined towards a still earlier date, then it would not be
> unreasonable to use the early portions of the gospel of John to indicate
> a pathologically earlier date, namely via:
>
> d) In the beginning was the Word...
>
> Almost all of those (save the pathological d)) can fit with "Anno Domini."
>
> All of those events represent potential candidates for accurate start
> dates; which would be most appropriate is a matter of opinion.  I'm afraid
> that the choice of "accurate" interpretation is just that, opinion.
> There are just too many reasonable candiates for "start of epoch."
>
> Of course, the above is *somewhat* irrelevant (if irreverent), as we're
> using the Gregorian calendar today that arbitrarily started at 1752, by
> legislative authority.  (Or as late as this century, in some places...)
> By *that* token, it is readily argued that there's still about 752 years
> left until the end of the first Gregorian millennium.
>

Ahh I see ....
Accuracy has no place in religion.