cure-real
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    9,167

    The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

    According to a website, the meaning of AD is Anno Domini or Year of our Lord referring to the year of Christís birth. The meaning of BC is Before Christ.

    BC means Before Christ then, correct? And AD is referring to the year of Christís birth then, correct? So why is it then that some are concluding Christ was born in 4 BC, as an example? How can Christ be born in BC and also be born in AD at the same time? I've never understood the logic in this.

    It seems to me then, if Christ was born 4 years prior to the beginning of the AD as we now know it, then someone was 4 years off as to when AD actually began, and not that Christ was born in BC. That would also mean that it's 2008 right now, instead of 2012. Hmmm...no wonder the world didn't end on Dec 21, 2012, like some feel the Mayans predicted. But this thread is not about the Mayans and 2012 tho, since I don't believe that prediction anymore than I believe in the man in the moon, even if we aren't technically in the year 2012 as of yet.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,497

    Re: The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

    It is because the calendar we have was made by men who place tradition higher than truth. 4 BC (to our man-made dates) is about correct. I say "about" because for sure, there are those who calculate 3 BC (with quite good ammunition).

    I quick Internet search will show you the origin of our calendar. It is not the bible.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    9,167

    Re: The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    It is because the calendar we have was made by men who place tradition higher than truth. 4 BC (to our man-made dates) is about correct. I say "about" because for sure, there are those who calculate 3 BC (with quite good ammunition).

    I quick Internet search will show you the origin of our calendar. It is not the bible.
    But that doesn't make it correct to say that Christ was born in 3 or 4 BC, since that is an illogical statement, as if it's fact. Wouldn't it be better to say that the calender that recorded His birth year is incorrect?

    Christ was born Before Christ(BC). That's not a true statement. It would also not be a true statement to say Christ was born in 3 or 4 BC. So why not just say the calenders got it wrong, instead of saying He was born in BC?

    I get the point, but why confuse unbelievers by saying Christ was born in BC, when that is an illogical conclusion?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    under the pain of the wish
    Posts
    10,787

    Re: The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    But that doesn't make it correct to say that Christ was born in 3 or 4 BC, since that is an illogical statement, as if it's fact. Wouldn't it be better to say that the calender that recorded His birth year is incorrect?

    Christ was born Before Christ(BC). That's not a true statement. It would also not be a true statement to say Christ was born in 3 or 4 BC. So why not just say the calenders got it wrong, instead of saying He was born in BC?

    I get the point, but why confuse unbelievers by saying Christ was born in BC, when that is an illogical conclusion?
    The statement is illogical in a sense. You are correct, it doesn't make sense to literally say, "Christ was born four years before the birth of Christ." What they mean to say is, "Those who established the birth date of Christ were mistaken. Christ was born four years earlier than once thought." [short cut: Christ was born 4BC] The author who takes the short cut expects latitude from the reader for the sake of brevity and efficiency. I think you will find examples of this sort all over the place, both in the Bible and in modern writing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,497

    Re: The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    The statement is illogical in a sense. You are correct, it doesn't make sense to literally say, "Christ was born four years before the birth of Christ." What they mean to say is, "Those who established the birth date of Christ were mistaken. Christ was born four years earlier than once thought." [short cut: Christ was born 4BC] The author who takes the short cut expects latitude from the reader for the sake of brevity and efficiency. I think you will find examples of this sort all over the place, both in the Bible and in modern writing.
    Thanks BroRog. Couldn't have said it better.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Eze 15:2-7
    Posts
    11,280
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: The birth of Christ in relation to BC and AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    According to a website, the meaning of AD is Anno Domini or Year of our Lord referring to the year of Christ’s birth. The meaning of BC is Before Christ.

    BC means Before Christ then, correct? And AD is referring to the year of Christ’s birth then, correct? So why is it then that some are concluding Christ was born in 4 BC, as an example? How can Christ be born in BC and also be born in AD at the same time? I've never understood the logic in this.

    It seems to me then, if Christ was born 4 years prior to the beginning of the AD as we now know it, then someone was 4 years off as to when AD actually began, and not that Christ was born in BC. That would also mean that it's 2008 right now, instead of 2012. Hmmm...no wonder the world didn't end on Dec 21, 2012, like some feel the Mayans predicted. But this thread is not about the Mayans and 2012 tho, since I don't believe that prediction anymore than I believe in the man in the moon, even if we aren't technically in the year 2012 as of yet.
    Nothing wrong with having a calendar based on "before Christ" only to subsequently realise that Christ was born at a different time to whatever was believed when the calendar was set up. It may be that the year of Christ's birth was mistaken, it may be that it was guessed to placate some group or another, it doesn't really matter. It's easier to accept that the original baseline was wrong and that Christ was born in 4BC, or 8BC, or 25AD, or whatever other date seems to work, than it is to try and figure that today isn't really December 29, 2012 but actually something more like September 14, 2008 only to later realise that we got the baseline wrong again and it just became February 13, 2014.
    24 August 2013 - I've decided to take a break from a number of internet forums, including this one, for my own reasons.
    I expect to be back at some time in the future, although at present don't know when that will be.
    I've been here just a few days shy of six years, and those six years have been greatly blessed.

    ---

    1Jn 4:1 NKJV Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
    1Th 5:21-22 NKJV Test all things; hold fast what is good. (22) Abstain from every form of evil.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The birth of Christ
    By Beckrl in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Dec 27th 2010, 06:09 PM
  2. Replies: 262
    Last Post: Oct 2nd 2010, 09:15 PM
  3. GOD's relation to time???
    By DeadToSelf in forum Young Adults Fellowship
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Aug 25th 2010, 01:17 AM
  4. Replies: 47
    Last Post: Oct 17th 2009, 05:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •