|
|
|
|||||||||||||
 As the Washington Post said on Jan. 1, 1900, as noted by a recent trade magazine article by Gene Forman, deputy editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, "If anyone will show us how a century can be completed with less than 100 years, and how 19 centuries can be completed with less than 1,900 years, and how the 20th century can begin before the 19th century ends, we shall joyfully put ashes in our hair and hail him as a wizard." Smart Tip Inside! Based on the above, could there be a year zero? Our calendar system is definitely an "ordered sequence." A year is definitely an item in an ordered sequence. Thus, the year number would be an "ordered number" or ordinal number. There is no zero in the Ordinal Number System There is no zero in the Roman Numeral System The first year "Anno Domini," as defined by the monk who invented our calendar, was 1 A.D. Since there was no year zero, what was the first millennium? The first decade was the years 1 to 10; the second was 11 to 20; third, 21 to 30, etc. Note that the decade ENDS with the year that is ten times the ordinal number of the decade. The two hundredth decade will end with the year 2000. The first century was the years 1 to 100; the second was 101 to 200; third, 201 to 300, etc. Note that the century ENDS with the year that is one hundred times the ordinal number of the century. The twentieth century will end with the year 2000. The first millennium was the years 1 to 1000; the second is 1001 to 2000; the third will be 2001 to 3000. Note that the millennium ENDS with the year that is one thousand times the ordinal number of the millennium LITTLE CRITICISM Because Joseph Justus Scaliger completely compositions certain numbers little more than headlining years/months "for us," that he set up in 16th century , to this longer subject dilemma we now face square today, I alone can't get over or even around this debate hurdle if truly only I state these new findings myself. Really I see "it (the problem) came more exact when in the 18th century linguists and lexicons established the "astronomical time" term use as preference over the "historical time," which ignores (year) 0 AD/BC as a year and accurately so. But Scaliger basically formulated a mathematical equation of ordinal rank, number and code, but addressed "nothing (zero - O - 0) to our stigma" of calendar anachronism. I can narrowly if any believe he hadn't considered this for anachronism clarification and furthermore by all appearance from our view he only exploited the term "epoch" for expository reasons or worse just for use of the term. More on this as I'm only getting under way with this real account R Frushour USGP... Creationism VS. Evolutionism Historical or Astronomical Argumentation? BibArchTime-line Editorial 10.08.2002 - Notice every time someone speaks the year "2002." 50% of the time they'll say "two-thousand AND two" and not (instead) "two thousand-two the more grammatically correct of the two" statements . That is because the lingual shortcut to refer the year (as the decade in similar) is "Twenty O(h-) Two" (or "Twenty O Three") and its decade, the Twenty O's or 20 Zeros and finally for that matter as the same, numeral term the "20 O's." The 21st Century and the 3rd Millennium - When Will They Begin? According To The Astronomical Applications Department of the US Naval Institute: Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century will begin with 1 January 2001 and continue through 31 December 2100. Similarly, the 1st millennium comprised the years AD 1-1000. The 2nd millennium comprises the years AD 1001-2000. The 3rd millennium will begin with AD 2001 and continue through AD 3000. Many initial epochs have been used for calender reckoning. For a calender epoch to be useful, however, it must be tied to a sequence of recorded historical events. This is illustrated by the adoption of the birth of Christ as the initial epoch of the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Scholars generally believe that Christ was born a few years before AD 1, the records are too sketchy to allow a definitive dating. Given an initial epoch, one must consider how to record preceding dates. Today it is obvious that a year designated 1 would be preceded by year 0, which would be preceded by year -1, etc. But since the concept of negative numbers did not come into use in Europe until the 16th century, and was initially only of interest to mathematicians, its application to chronological problems was delayed for two more centuries. Interjection by Page Writer suggests here that for this point and as well in DaveO's argumentative points on previous page regarding "increments of time under a year," as for each reference in terminology the two expressions of a matter "his point", are arguments separate and unrelated if even, share as they do the similar materials and chronological time "topic," and too indeed are of interesting discussions but anyway... cont'd. with Observatory Opinions... Instead, years were counted from a succession of initial epochs. Even as Dionysius' practice of dating from the Incarnation became common in ecclesiastical writings of the middle ages, traditional dating practices continued for civil purposes. In the 16th century Joseph Justus Scaliger tried to resolve the patchwork of historical eras by placing everything on a single system. Not being ready to deal with negative year counts, he sought an initial epoch in advance of any historical record. His approach was numerological and utilized three calender cycles: the 28-year solar cycle, the 19-year cycle of Golden Numbers, and the 15-year indiction cycle. The solar cycle is the period after which week days and calendar dates repeat in the Julian calendar. The cycle of Golden Numbers is the period after which moon phases repeat (approximately) on the same calendar dates. The indiction cycle was a Roman tax cycle of unknown origin. Therefore, Scaliger could characterize a year by the combination of numbers (S,G,I), where S runs from 1 through 28, G from 1 through 19, and I from 1 through 15. Scaliger first stated that a given combination would recur after 7980 (= 28 x 19 x 15) years. He called this a Julian cycle because it was based on the Julian calendar. Scaliger knew that the year of Christ's birth (as determined by Dionysius Exiguus) was characterized by the number 9 of the solar cycle, by Golden Number 1, and by number 3 of the indiction cycle, or (9,1,3). Then Scaliger chose as this initial epoch the year characterized by (1,1,1) and determined that (9,1,3) was year 4713 of his chronological era. Scaliger's initial epoch was later to be adopted as the initial epoch for the Julian Day numbers. We would say that Scaliger's initial epoch was 4713 BC or -4712. In the historical system of dating, AD 1 is preceded by 1 BC; there is no year 0. In the astronomical system, AD 1 is designated +1; this is preceded by year 0, which is preceded by year -1. The historical system was introduced in the 16th century. However, the astronomical system was not introduced until the 18th century. HOW ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT For you people who are on one or both sides of argument that "we are or that we aren't" past the church age yet and so for epochal record are we in the tribulation hour where surely the latter rain has begun (and too and as likely when the church age IS OVER) and when we come out of congregations (for latter rain ministering instead)? Or are we as on the contrary to attend our spirit filled church's (as for the former rain in our preposition) until the rapture? Nonetheless it should remind each position for the syllogism that we both here are under judgment if for such selfish insistence that each accuses "the other," to influence him or her away from their base, or worse is as heretical off base. In Scripture, when a month (lit., new moon) is given, the first day (for these prophetic circumstances - the decade or even merely the seventieth-week/seven years) of that month is understood to be early few days/months/years, unless another day is given but it isn't. Therefore this passage in Joel means the first day (decade) of the first month (take your pick here of "the millennial reign," the great tribulation period," "the great day" or but all of these epoch's) day which can only expose "Twenty Tens decade" as the first month envisioning now as we may, the scope of the "epochal end of the church age," as we watch to be what it is for and not just having to longer speculate peculiarities and expositions. Part I Last Word By Randy FrushourIt should finally occur to us this is a lingual and literal hurdle that has continued over many centuries and throughout ages likely in debate and argument and carried on by evolutionists and creationists first about "the length of a Genesis Day" or commonly known as "the 7 days of creation" and now here for the questionable completion of Scaligers composition though I bend a knee to his longstanding idiom. But for intros and looking at the first four words of the Bible - "In the beginning GOD" and then next "CREATED" we can presuppose God for prior had always been GOD and "in a time (pretentiously omnipresence) before" the beginning. This era we can call "Year Zero or Zero(s)Year(s)." Now the story cited in Genesis 1 of creation, particularly chapter 1 vs' 1-13 while man and woman had not been created, but until the 6th Genesis day and how neither had the sun and moon (or stars in the sky for signs, seasons, years and days) been created and put in orbit until the 4th Genesis day cited in chapter 1 vs 14, we face a large portion of the days unaccounted for by 24 hour periods incrementally and so at least half of "the days of creation." Considering we are moving on to the next millennium conclusively, with this period described here before the (first) 24 hour period where already were created the "heaven and earth, light, water (h2o), seaweed or vegetation, dry land & seas, grass, herbs and trees, now the idiom focuses in with special meaning from usage and characterized in language with artistic and peculiar vernacular, and further next on in "artificial intelligible programming." I myself have heard on numerous occasions AT&T's automated voice router announce or pronounce the date on my bill as "Twenty (letter o) O Two!" Intense research, experiment and development in the Nineteen Nineties to implement a one universal language "easily spoken by all peoples and machines" went to the shelf, yet to be final as approved by agencies as the U.N. but may well be common place in every culture a thousand years from now to preposition subjects of related topics included and not including in my book. Part II To prevent risk labeling "heretic" by few, attempts in the proposal are to express truthful facts as well understanding of the proposition as presented. Converse in the next discourse as setting apart the participant views or viewpoints page offer readers and linguists a welcomed side with arguments for their literary forum or lexicons. Reference by the publisher to God, as in Genesis chapter one verse one is appropriated so within Greek and Hebrew translations guarding against Pagan usages of polytheism or Unitarianism demand, and incorporate Genesis chapter one verses two and twenty-six (God's) "Spirit" to ignite the "pluralistic within absolute unity" nature of God while posed also, in singular as one God. God translated in the Greek is Elohim meaning creators (plural) as is in Ecclesiastes chapter 12 vs 1 and Isaiah 55; 5 while in Hebrew "plural" is two (or more) but in Greek means "three" so we have two, three or more in one. Here interchange of singular and plural is given place and so facts of the proposition are quite clear. Validation on above statements may come from writing, Family Radio Stations, Oakland, Ca., 94621 or call 1-800-543-1495 for"study (on) Trinity (keyword) - date 5.12.2002 Notion to bring God into summation, giving "truths a basis and/or premise" is posed out now to and because of parties (link TOC) near ending post of this debate forum who for likewise but primarily entered "God" for discussion.  Inside Smart Tip |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
| United States Publisher |
 |
  |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00752 |
| zerOs home | Beginner Forum | Genuine Unies Viewer Zeb | Dictionary Comment | Last Half First Decade | Exposition | Multiparty |