BC?, AD?, Why Not Just BP?

Sam Salmon · Post by **Sam Salmon** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:04 pm

As per the subject line why are these outmoded terms still being used?

BP-Before Present is so much easier to understand.

Your thoughts?

TIA

Barracuda · Post by **Barracuda** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:06 pm

OK

Counting every event in history by its realtionship to the birth of Jesus Christ is sort of Ethnocentric.

Most people are taught that BC stands for "Before Christ" and AD stands for "After Death" but it is actual from latin phases, which I don't remember...

Starflower · Post by **Starflower** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:13 pm

These'outmoded' terms are still being used because some people are too old and/or set in their ways to change. My Da will not use a computer, he will let others use one for him, but will not touch one himself. We finally got him to use a cell phone this year, and he still holds it out and yells into it(like James T. Kirk). Can't convince him you can use it just like a 'real' phone, it's too little.
I agree that BP would be easier to understand, but it would play hell with textbooks. Unless you plan to change them every year.
While I am resistant to change, I believe CE and BCE are the best compromise we have available at this time. By the by, when in a rush, I have been guilty of using the 'outmoded' terms me ownself.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:30 pm

BC- Before Christ
AD- Anno Domini (in the year of our lord)
I always use CE - Common Era and BCE - Before Common Era if for no other eeason that it drives the fundies nuts
not that they arent already of course

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:05 am

I prefer kya (thousand years ago) or mya (million years ago) - but then, I rarely get involved in stuff that happened in the last 5,000 years ....

The only problem with BP is that 'present' is considered to be 1950. So, 500BP is 1450AD.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:09 am

Any dating systems needs a "year zero" to start from. a date 2,000 years ago is as good as any, others date from the first dynasty to reign, etc. The problem with using BP is that it's a moving target, and in a century or two 750 BP isn't going to mean what it does today.

I prefer CE and BCE as well, although it still assumes that the resumed birth of Jesus is a common marker for everyone. It isn't, but it's pretty generally recognized so - OK.....

When you get into millions of years ago, 2,000 years ceaces to be significant in terms of what you are measuring.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:02 am

I don't have a problem with using a convention like BC/AD. It is a system which did not grow up overnight and changing it brings memories of the failed plan to convert the US to metrics....a good idea but not worth the time or trouble.

I refuse to be politically correct however with this CE/BCE stuff.

stan · Post by **stan** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:17 pm

I think of BC and AD in terms of European/Mediterranean history, and though not accurate, I have in my head that these represent the dividing line between the Preeminence of the Greeks and the Preeminence of the Romans.
The Romans became the representatives of Christ about 300 AD and the Roman Institution of the Church still exists today.
Just personal reference points for me when I am thinking on a big scale. I know there are several conflicting calendars.

(There is no such thing as YEAR zero, BTW. Zero is only the instant of passage between BC and AD, theoretically.
You have year 1 BC followed by year 1 AD.)

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:42 pm

Dionysius Exiguus, the monk who did the work that Pope Gregory got credit for, actually made two mistakes. He not only forgot the Year Zero, a simple mistake to make as the Romans, for all their engineering brillance, never developed the mathematical concept of zero and, in fact, had dated their calendar on the length of time from the founding of the City of Rome. Further, they also tended to date the year by referring to it as the year by the names of the consuls elected...a Republican gesture which was maintained in form, if not substance, into the Empire.

Secondly, and more importantly, Dionysius overlooked the fact that Gaius Octavius Caesar "reigned" for four years under his own name before becoming Augustus Caesar when he made his calculations. Thus he left out the years 31-27 BC.

So, the calendar is off by five years which means that we are really in the year 2011 right now and if the Mayans are right then the world will come to an end in a little over 14 months.

Something to look forward to.

stan · Post by **stan** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:34 pm

Thanks for the warning, Bob!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:57 pm

I believe that when an exact date is known, then the dating system should be exact. As in the case of the reign of a Pharoah or a Roman Emperor.

In those cases scientific publishings use the CE and BCE system, and all other users employ whichever system they have been accustomed to.

In much more ancient scenarios, such as the age of a Neandertal bone or when the first evidence of man in the Americas dates from BP or ca. are perfectly good ways to represent it.

So - exact or inexact - that is the question...

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:53 am

Minimalist wrote:So, the calendar is off by five years which means that we are really in the year 2011 right now and if the Mayans are right then the world will come to an end in a little over 14 months.

Sorry. Getting a bit off-topic here, but I think that often quoted 2012 date is a bit suspect being as, so far as I understand, it fails to account for whatever system the Maya used to compensate for the solar year being a little longer than the calendar year. Whatever system they used must have ocurred outside the recorded calendar. Actually, the Maya aren't quite my area so I could be wrong. Unfortunately I've become so conditioned by mystical types like (shudder) Terrance McKenna burbling on and on and on about 2012 that my blood begins to boil whenever I see a reference to that date irrespective of how well-made that reference may be.
I think I'm going to need councelling.
Back to the topic...
CE and BCE get my vote.

Roberto · Post by **Roberto** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:47 am

So, the calendar is off by five years which means that we are really in the year 2011 right now and if the Mayans are right then the world will come to an end in a little over 14 months.
Minimalist

In 14 months .... perhaps this is when North Korea decides to blow up the world. China better move in quick and take this "lunatic" out fast!

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:07 am

Hmmm... should've quoted some sort of source regarding that Mayan clendar business. I know there's an old forum directly relating to the subject but I'm not sure what the form is on reviving old threads. Anyway, Ross Hassig's Time, History and Belief in Aztec and Colonial Mexico (Texas) puts a goodly clump of nails in the coffin of McKennaesque 2012 theory.
And as for BP or BPE. BP just sounds like BP as in British Petroleum, or Baden-Powell, author of 'Scouting for Boys'.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:21 am

We have kicked this around before W/A so it amounts to a re-hash.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868185/site/newsweek/

Sept. 25, 2006 issue - Followers of New Age spirituality have long turned to indigenous religions for wisdom and inspiration, so it has not escaped their notice that something big happens in 2012: the ancient and complex Mayan calendar—studied by astrology, spirituality and history buffs alike—has chugged along for 1,872,000 days, and its cycle stops (and restarts) on Dec. 21, 2012.