Here we go again

I hear that we are not to say BC (before Christ,)when refering to a year, but must now use BP (before present) Haven`t heard what they are thinking of saying instead of AD.......maybe they`ll say Amoco for that, seeing as were using oil company names

 

Actually, it is generally BCE (before common era) and CE (common era) in many writings now...

 

The substitute for AD has been CE....current era.

good joke, though....

 

I would have no problem removing "In God We Trust" from our currency since the vast majority of the country trusts the currency more than they trust GOd.

 

The good thing about this is the fact it stirs up debate about God. I think it's good when people start looking into these kinds of things. It may bring about a whole new group of believers. I'm not threatened he wants to take the word 'God' off money. I don't think it changes a thing. In my opinion.

 

It's typically BCE and ACE (before the common era and after the common era). As we know, the origins of the Christian Calender resulted in us using "BC and AD" (why in English we mix English and Latin in dating is beyond me). The problem with these is that updates to the calendar have left these descriptions quite inaccurate. Christ was likely born somewhere around 4bc to 7 bc, a bit of a paradox. BCE and ACE have been used in the archaeology world for quite some time. They are by no means new. I'm a bit of a loss as to why there's a broughaha over their use now.

It's correct to use BCE and ACE when referring to archeological or global historical topics. Use of AD and BC are commonly used elsewhere, but they are as inaccurate as Anno Mundi (AM), the year of creation, which has long since been dropped. Likewise dropped is Anno Salutis (AS), the year of salvation. What confuses the use is that Ante Christum (AC), meaning before Christ, has also been used in place of "BC".

Anno Domini is the Roman expression for "The year of the dominium of the Lord", or simply "the year of the Lord". "Lord" originally referred to the highest office of the Roman Empire. At that time this was Julius Caesar and it related to any year he was in office.

Now, "B.C." stands for any year "before Ceasar". This is to say the Romans could not care less what came before Ceasar, and remember, the Romans ruled! As with BC, Christianity saw this as a golden opportunity to make this one of their own significance, by simply changing it to "Before Christ." Since the Greek word for king is "Christos", it fit (The Roman word REX or the Hebrew word MELEG would not have worked). We can thank Dionysius Exiguus for the AD and BC standard (circa AD 525). Dionysius originally intended them refer to separate and distinct eras. He did not intend to have them be used in a linear calendric timeline in the manner which we use them today. It was not until 1657 that the BC and AD dates were used on a numberline (or dateline). It was at this time the magic quadratic question came up: There is no year "0". The year "0"'s absence is due to Dionysius never intending to use both eras on a common timeline.

So here we are, stuck with a yearing system that is fatally flawed by the fact that negative numbers on a timeline is veboten, though any other numeric line requires negative number use, as well as use of a zero meridian. If we had it to do over again, we would certainly make it so that a time line would work (probably referencing a cosmic or stellar event) but we are stuck with a system that predates the integers, and we can't pretend otherwise.

 

My dollars will spend just as well regardless of any mottos, slogans, or sayings. As long as it is legal tender, they can put "Go Broncos!" on it.

 

I think the Supreme Court already denied to hear this argument.