Re: [at-l] Re: The so-called Millenium

[bullard@northnet.org]

At 02:52 PM 12/17/99 -0500, Coosa wrote:
>*********Public consensus is that the new millennium starts next year,
>however in truth, since there was no 'year zero' in the Gregorian calendar,
>it starts a year from the 31st of this December at the stroke of midnight.
>
Okay, one more time. Neither Jan. 1st, 2000 or Jan. 1st, 2001 is the end of
the Millenium. The same Monk who screwed up by not allowing for a year zero
(which would make the begining of the Millenium 1/1/2000) ALSO missed the
birthdate of Jesus (remember him, the guy whose birthdate our calendar is
supposed to based on?) by at least 4 years (plus some months). Those four
years+ push the start date backward (as in <== thataway) in time. What that
means if we allow for the *minimum* amount that his error could have been
the Millenium ended in Sept. 1997. If the degree of error was greater the
Millenium ended even farther back in time. Any debate about whether 2000 or
2001 is the correct start of the Millenium is an arguement over which wrong
date to accept. They're BOTH WRONG! What difference does it make?

Saunterer

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================