BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by ADG
Talking about the timescale...why don't the whole world not change to a whole new kind of date, which means today is year 0 and there are 3 sundays a week

For that matter, we could all be like the French and work 3 days a week.

[Dugrik]

Originally posted by fluffy


Thinking about it, why isn't his birthyear 0AD, as '1AD' means 'one year after his birth' and '1BC' means 'one year before his birth?? Seems like there is a year missing....

Because when the Julian calendar years were renumbered to use Christ's birth as the starting point, Europeans did not have, nor could they conceive of, the number zero. The number zero and the base ten numbering system were not adopted in Europe until the fourteenth century. Thus there is no Year 0.

It was my understanding that historians have placed the events described in Luke 2:1-2 in the year 4 BCE.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dugrik


Because when the Julian calendar years were renumbered to use Christ's birth as the starting point, Europeans did not have, nor could they conceive of, the number zero. The number zero and the base ten numbering system were not adopted in Europe until the fourteenth century. Thus there is no Year 0.

It was my understanding that historians have placed the events described in Luke 2:1-2 in the year 4 BCE.

Also, "Anno Domini" does not mean after birth. It means "In the Year of Our Lord." So 1 AD is the first year of Our Lord.

According to J.M. Roberts' excellent A History of the World (Penguin publishers, highly recommend it), there still is not a consensus, and likely never will be. A lot of people say 4 BCE because it makes it nice and pat that Jesus would have been 33 in 30 CE, when he was crucified, and the Bible says he was in his 33rd year.

[Cookie Monster]

JellyDonut?

Is chow allowed in the barracks Pvt. Pyle? Are you allowed to eat jelly donuts Pvt. Pyle?

[Eli]

Use the Jewish calendar!

[seer_98]

BCE/CE

AD - Anno Domini - "in the year of our lord"
Well he isn't my lord. I can't say, "The year is 2001 AD.", because this means "2001 in the year of our lord". 2001 CE is fine with me.

BC - Before Christ. Christ isn't a name or a title. It means the messiah as foretold in the old testament. Even using BC concedes a religeous point, I'm not willing to concede (ie That Jesus was Christ.) If you are a jew you believe christ hasn't come yet. Atheists don't even believe he will ever exist. Only christians concede Jesus was Christ. Implicit in this term is an inherent belief in Christianity. BCE works fine for me.

AD/BC aren't used in large parts of the world. Perhaps firaxis will change it to BCE/CE in some of its country customizations. I hope they do it for the American release, as it really shouldn't confuse anyone.

This isn't political correctness. It is courtesy. Not calling a person on the street f*ckface or religeous freak isn't political correctness either. It is also common manner/coutesy.

[Gangerolf]

This isn't political correctness. It is courtesy. Not calling a person on the street f*ckface or religeous freak isn't political correctness either. It is also common manner/coutesy.

Of course it's PC. It's PC in the same way as saying "African American" instead of "Negro".
Political correctness is appropriate in some cases, but in other it's just plain silly.

[seer_98]

Originally posted by Gangerolf

... as BCE/CE seems to be some hypocritical political correct bull**** (no offense).

I fail to see how its hypocritical. And I still fail to see how its politically correct. I think the term you were searching for is just "correct".

[Cookie Monster]

Just curious......

Has this discussion ever been debated before? What I mean is, has the BC/BCE AD/CE issue ever been debated at all at anytime in history other than the past 3 years with such passion in the Western World?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Just curious......

Has this discussion ever been debated before? What I mean is, has the BC/BCE AD/CE issue ever been debated at all at anytime in history other than the past 3 years with such passion in the Western World?

Yes, repeatedly, bitterly, ad nauseum.

But, among historians, BCE/CE seems to be winning out.

[Buck Birdseed]

I object to our "common era" being defined by the supposed date of birth of a historical figure who might or might not have existed, and who certainly has been more divisive than uniting. In what way is the age after the 11th of Nivôse in MDCCXCI before the Revolution any way the start of said "common era"?

Vive Le Calendaire Jacobien!

[Boris Godunov]

Whoa...

I object to our "common era" being defined by the supposed date of birth of a historical figure who might or might not have existed

Hold on there, partner!

If you're referring to Jesus, there is no historical doubt that he did indeed exist. Jesus was certainly a real man. He is documented in more than just the Bible...Roman records refer to him, as do local Hebrew records.

The question is a theological one (his divinity), not his reality.

Cheers.

[CobraA1]

Put Common Era in. I don't mind. It'll seem strange to me, being raised with BC/AD, but it won't change the game any. It can probably be edited anyway.

[jdlessl]

I'd just go with starting the game at year 0 and counting upwards. What calender is used within the year isn't really important since Civ doesn't deal with time periods <1 year. However, mods of the game certainly will so the game should be customizable to use any calendar system it wants.

--
Jared Lessl

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Snapcase
I object to our "common era" being defined by the supposed date of birth of a historical figure who might or might not have existed, and who certainly has been more divisive than uniting. In what way is the age after the 11th of Nivôse in MDCCXCI before the Revolution any way the start of said "common era"?

Vive Le Calendaire Jacobien!

Had I known a fellow revolutionary were among us, I might have wished you Bonne Année earlier this week.

Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!