Climate of Fear

[mmmaestro007]

i just watched this quite alarming documentary where people who have lived on an small island near the Arctic Circle for thousands of years have to move cos their land is disappearing

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

"A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."

there have also been reports here where leading Oz scientists have been gagged on these sorts of issues

it also says in the doc that if Texas was a country it would be the sixth largest polluter of fossil fuels in the world 

this is a link to the 40 min doc

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13511.htm

[pianistimo]

if it's so hush hush - how come national geographic did a cover story on it (with polar bear on the front)?  alaskans have known this for about as long as the arctic ice keeps melting (along with many glaciers).  there is probably much history being uncovered right now - that has been frozen until this point.  yes. the animals and people are being relocated.  i don't think i'd like being a polar bear right now. 

i personally think that there is noone on the planet right now that can do much about it.  maybe track it.  change it?  i don't think so.  too much caught in the ozone layer already - but i could be wrong.  as i understand it - once there are holes - you can't just go up there and stick bubble gum in them.

[prometheus]

Almost all species of life on earth die out at some point because of climate change. Those that have not died out yet largely have not because they are too young to have died out. There are only a few species of life that really survive for a long time. But also those will die out.

But, sometimes a species that dies out will pass on some of its genes by giving rise to a new species.


Now then we have humans. They have an unique tool of survival; intelligence. So while humans have the intelligence to fight against the risk of dying out because of a climate change they are actually causing one. The irony and the absurdity.
Now one may claim that though the climate is changing it isn't caused by humans, this just contradicts that what we think we know. It may or may not be the case. But it is just true that there is an unique consensus on the scientists working in the field; it is caused by humans.

Bush also has been trying to deny this. But now even he is saying humans do cause it, though he tries to keep it at the minimum.

[pianowelsh]

I have to say I honestly dont think its intelligence that has ensured our survival as a race. You wont be surprised to hear that I believe its God by his grace who as saved mankind from destruction thusfar.  He promised in his word that He would never again flood the earth with water after Noah and the bible speaks of their being people still on earth when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead.  Its true that the world is moaning and creeking at the seems waiting for its redemption. Scripture is really clear on that too .. that the heavens and the earth will pass away and there will be a new one.  It would seem the mode of destruction for the earth is fire acording to scripture or at least heat?!? allowing for any marginal discrepancies in the translation. Which with all the talk of global warming and the odd scare story of meteors which migh collide with the earth at unknown times dosent seem so far fetched as it might at first.  In one sense yes I suppose it could cause fear especially if you dont having a saving relationship with jesus because the world is coming to an end - we dont know when - and then there is judgement, now and unltimately when Christ returns. For the Christian although there may be concern for the situation around them, there is a peace and a certainty in trusting Christ because he made the world and has bought us by the blood of his son, we are his family...he takes care of his kids(in the spiritual sense). So for Christian..very intersting all news stories but really it causes anticipation rather than a climate of fear in the scared stiff rooted to the spot way.

[earthward]

I have to say I honestly dont think its intelligence that has ensured our survival as a race. You wont be surprised to hear that I believe its God by his grace who as saved mankind from destruction thusfar.  He promised in his word that He would never again flood the earth with water after Noah and the bible speaks of their being people still on earth when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead.  Its true that the world is moaning and creeking at the seems waiting for its redemption. Scripture is really clear on that too .. that the heavens and the earth will pass away and there will be a new one.  It would seem the mode of destruction for the earth is fire acording to scripture or at least heat?!? allowing for any marginal discrepancies in the translation. Which with all the talk of global warming and the odd scare story of meteors which migh collide with the earth at unknown times dosent seem so far fetched as it might at first.  In one sense yes I suppose it could cause fear especially if you dont having a saving relationship with jesus because the world is coming to an end - we dont know when - and then there is judgement, now and unltimately when Christ returns. For the Christian although there may be concern for the situation around them, there is a peace and a certainty in trusting Christ because he made the world and has bought us by the blood of his son, we are his family...he takes care of his kids(in the spiritual sense). So for Christian..very intersting all news stories but really it causes anticipation rather than a climate of fear in the scared stiff rooted to the spot way.

But if we sit back and let god take care of things how do you know we're not missing the chance to do something to save ourselves? If god created us and created the world don't you think he expects us to take care of the planet and ultimately to take care of ourselves? If you want to look at it in a spiritual standpoint that's fine but I think humans beings still have to take responsibility for themselves and their future.

This an important discussion so let's keep it going.

[pianolist]

The American Indians find it impossible to come to terms with their Asiatic origins. It's obvious enough, but their religion renders them incapable of seeing the obvious. In exactly the same way, all of our monotheistic religions cannot cope with the idea of the human race being a form of ape. In very general terms, this prevents them having the humility to understand our true relationship to the natural order.

I would guess that humans will survive global warming, but in greatly reduced numbers. I regret to say that I think there will be massive wars, both international and civil, before any equilibrium of humanity is reached. When the earth really starts to heat up and produce permanent hurricanes and floods, there will be very many religious people who will lose their faith, and the result of that will be violence. As an atheist, I try (not always successfully) to live in a way that is respectful towards human society. I don't need God to point me in that direction. But those who have trusted God for most of their lives, and suddenly find that the earth is more real than He is, may well take their disillusionment as a licence for the abandonment of morality (or partying, as Pianistimo gently puts it).

Anything we can do to lessen the suddenness of global warming and melting is to be welcomed, but it will surely come, whatever we do. Individual human beings can be very clever, and pianists are on the whole amongst the intellectual classes, but it is the mass of humanity which forms the mass of the world's electorate, and I am not optimistic that those elected will have the wit to lead their populations wisely. They certainly don't at the moment.

[prometheus]

I have to say I honestly dont think its intelligence that has ensured our survival as a race.

It doesn't ensure it. But it does give us the possibility to at least try it. Our intelligence is a powerful tool. We can use it to destroy and create.

You wont be surprised to hear that I believe its God by his grace who as saved mankind from destruction thusfar.

I think that is a crazy idea because you make amazing claims without any evidence. I also think it is potentionalle dangerous because it may incourage reckless behavior.

He promised in his word that He would never again flood the earth with water after Noah...

The earth never flooded. Not only is there no evidence, which it would create, it is also impossible because of gravity.

So for Christian..very intersting all news stories but really it causes anticipation rather than a climate of fear in the scared stiff rooted to the spot way.

The climate is destroyed and you are anticipating you ascendence into heaven? That's almost as one of those rapture-people that long for global nuclear war.

[pianistimo]

if the earth never flooded - why do we have the grand canyon and huge canyons elsewhere.  some great amount of water and ice would have had to create those.  also, there is sedimentary proof of a worldwide flood - because sea creatures have been discovered very high up (as fossils) on mountains.  explain that!

i think sometimes we are all (and i include myself) too quick to form judgments about what God is capable of.  if he says that we should do this or that and we obey - then we will have an assurity of our protection in dire times.  king david said 'though ten thousand die at your right hand  - and some other number on your left'  - the implication is that God CAN protect us through any kind of disaster.  and, even if the worst happened and it was our time to die - then God could easily ressurrect us from the dead.  no need to worry about death, per se.  it's like having an afternoon nap (perhaps not the moments of dying - but what comes after).

i think actually, the opposite of pianolists assessment of what will happen when the tribulation finally occurs in totality.  i think people will TURN to God.  i think they will say - 'now I believe.'  they will see the awesomeness of God's power and judgement.  for 'He is coming to judge the earth.'  but, if we judge ourselves right now - there is 'no condemnation.'  just sitting around and waiting until it happens is like shooting oneself in the foot.  if you want to escape what is going to happen on the earth (either by a relocation or a momentary 'sleep') then you have to fully trust that God has it all figured out.  if He works out small miracles in our lives right now - and tells us that if we have 'a mustard seed' of faith - to move mountains (big problems) - then as the times get shorter and rougher - we just pray more and become closer to Him and to our brethren.  there is really nothing to fear.  PERFECT LOVE CASTS OUT FEAR.

[pianistimo]

btw, i totally agree that we should do our best to take care of the planet.  i am not a christian who believes to let God do everything.  why else did he tell adam to 'tend.'

and, i suppose when climate change finally does take over with a lot of strange weather patterns, every knee will bow.  i don't think God exempts christians from sufferring at times as well.  we all have sin - and God can well speak for Himself.  but, if we accept correction - then we have a place of refuge.  there was a tornado that went through a midwest town - and a man decided to hole up in the bathtub.  his ENTIRE house went down and blew away around him and he actually walked away!  that's pretty amazing!

i guess we do what we need to in terms of having a plan, too.  i used to regularly send packets of stuff to my mom- about insurance, social security, places that we might be in case of emergency.  the schools are now doing this, too, which is reassuring.  we have an idea of several places that our children or ourselves will be.  probably the worst thing is to have no plan at all.  perhaps having some pointers of good things to do in case the 'worst' happened would be helpful.  right now, in california, people are losing homes right and left to a huge wildfire that is out of control.  am sure that the people who kept duplicate copies of stuff somewhere else are able to even contact the insurance asap with their policy number, etc.

[tds]

PERFECT LOVE CASTS OUT FEAR.

behold! susan has spokenth.

[prometheus]

if the earth never flooded - why do we have the grand canyon and huge canyons elsewhere.  some great amount of water and ice would have had to create those.  also, there is sedimentary proof of a worldwide flood - because sea creatures have been discovered very high up (as fossils) on mountains.  explain that!

That's because the earth is not 6000 years old, as the bible claims, but 4.6 billion years. Quite a difference. It would be impossible for the Grand Canyon to have formed in 6000 years. No matter how much floods.


The reason you can find fossils of sea creatures long extinct on top of mount everest is because this point on the continental plate was once under water. If you look at a map of continental plates you will see that India moved into Asia. There was once a sea inbetween India en China.
Now you won't find fossils of whales on Mount Everest.

How could this have happened if the earth was only 6000 years?

Fact just is that even with all the water of the ice on Greenland and Antartica melted into the seas there will still be continents.

[wishful thinker]

PIanistimo,

By taking the good book so literally, you are making us all (i.e. Christians) look foolish.  You cannot possibly believe this, so I suppose that you are just winding us up, right? 

Anyhow as to the universality of the flood (if we suppose for a moment that the flood is meant to be a real historical event (Christ himself refers to it (Matthew 24:37-39)) you might find that you are reading the text wrongly.  The words of the original text, rendered "earth" in our version, signify "land" as well as "earth"; in fact, "land" appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen., iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters "filled all on the face of the land", "all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land", "all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died", "all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered"? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noe lived, but not the whole earth.

And some reasons why universality (though many peoples of the earth (80 odd) have flood mythology) cannot be:

1. No geological traces can be found as ought to have been left by a universal Deluge.

2. The amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days' rain, ten times more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be filled by unknown sources amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water to the level of the greatest mountains.

3. If the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal, the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have lived in the mixture without a miracle.

4. There are serious difficulties connected with the animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How were they brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of beasts? Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under the same roof?

As I have told you before, some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally (such as the mission of Christ), some are simplifications to explain complex phenomena (such as how the earth came to be) and some are pure allegory (such as the Book of Revelation).  Please pay attention. 

[timothy42b]

Now you won't find fossils of whales on Mount Everest.

Mt Everest IS the fossil of sea creatures.  It is limestone, created by the bones/shells of long dead teenie-tiny sea animals, converted to stone over a very long time.  We're talking microscopic size critters here, so there were lots of them.  Lots and lots of them.  

It is five miles high.  Five miles.

If you think sufficient sea animals lived, died, and turned to stone during a one year flood to form a five mile high mountain, you have a serious disconnect with reality.  You must go around with fingers in your ears singing la-la-la all day long to keep the world outside.  Seriously, does what you said make any sense at all?  Would a 46 foot deep flood have even covered a five mile high mountain, and left shells on top?  

[timothy42b]

ps I didn't mean my reply to be to prometheus, but to literalist floodlovers. 

[henrah]

Isn't it that we're just going into another ice age? Isn't our planet just in a big loop: starts heating up, atmosphere gets destroyed, planet ices over, atmosphere reconstructs, ice melts, atmosphere causes heating up again, atmosphere gets destroyed, planet ices over etc etc.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

you just countered yourself (when you first said there has been no evidence of worldwide flood of any sort).  now, you are admitting that something covered the mountaintops of EVEREST, no less.  regarding the times of the floods - i don't doubt there was a previousflood which covered the entire earth.  the bible is relatively silent about that because obviously all life forms would have died and a 'recreation' taken place from the point of genesis 1:1.  but, if God had to recreate the sun, moon, and stars - at this point - the world as we know it probably had more land mass - and gradually as the glaciers melted - portions of the land were lowered and raised accordingly (volcanic islands, etc).

it is my belief that the noatian flood was correct in time, despite refutations - 'that cannot be possible.'  that is what people said at the time - before it happened. and, why, if it CANNOT happen, is it happening to a limited degree right now.  the glaciers are melting.  how much ice is being put into the water will show us that many portions of beach front property will suddenly be under water. 

dear tds,

i think only God is perfect in love, therefore i cannot be speaking those words.

[prometheus]

dear prometheus,

you just countered yourself (when you first said there has been no evidence of worldwide flood of any sort).  now, you are admitting that something covered the mountaintops of EVEREST, no less. 

No. You don't understand. There were no mountains when there was sea there. The mountains were created by the collission of the two continental plates pushing into each other. They push up the land. 

[pianistimo]

i'm not arguing about land formations, but that was way before the noatian flood.  did you know on one mountain in particular i found a small lake that was full of fish.  it was too far back to be stocked.  people say - oh, that lake was stocked.  how can you explain it in pristine areas that hardly anyone visits?

rani pokhari fish in kathmandu ponds - would be another example of fish at a very high altitude.

common thought is that sedimentary layers have to occur over millions of years.  but, in some places huge portions are bent (which would mean - all the layers bent together before they had time to turn to rock).  www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp 

[wishful thinker]

I think that you will find that it is quite common for empty ponds to gradually fill with fish.  Birds transport them.  This happens on my farm, without the need for floods or tidal waves 

As for that link, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha 

[pianistimo]

here's another article.  more recent.  the sea explorations of ballard and what was uncovered:
https://s8int.com/noahsark2.html

[prometheus]

i'm not arguing about land formations, but that was way before the noatian flood.  did you know on one mountain in particular i found a small lake that was full of fish.  it was too far back to be stocked.  people say - oh, that lake was stocked.  how can you explain it in pristine areas that hardly anyone visits?
 

You brought that up 2,5 years ago, I think. It's quite simple. Fish of fish eggs could even get there through rain. But today it is also quite probable that humans set fish loose there.

Those sites are creation sites made by deluded Christians. They are of no use in establishing truth.

Also, a small isolated lake in the dry season could be part of a big river in the rain season or in spring. Especially in the mountains. There are tons of ways to explain this that are all a lot more probable than a global flood. We aren't even talking about a global scale here. And to assume god created magical water to flood everything is just eliminated by Occams razor.

[pianolist]

Not that I'm complaining, because I like to see threads evolve, but we began with a concern for the future, and we are currently discussing the distant past, with particular reference to God. I can see that God, in His various incarnations, has been a very useful invention for keeping humans living in a disciplined way in moderately complex societies, but I fear He will become a millstone in any efforts we make to save our planet. Why not abandon Him and worship Me instead? I have quite a decent white beard, I can play the Thunder and Lightning Polka, and I sang in Noye's Fludde at school. Any takers?

[henrah]

Whats Occams razor again? Is that the half of half of half will never get to zero thing, or something else?

Pianolist, I bow down to you and hope that you accept my kind sacrifice of a leg of lamb from Tescos.

[pianolist]

Despite My normally Supreme and Universal Understanding of Mankind, I'm afraid I don't know the details of Occam's Razor, or indeed anybody else's, since I last shaved in August 1972. But the leg of lamb sounds good. We might negotiate on 11th November. You probably don't know that there is a special shop at Reykjavik airport where you can buy frozen Icelandic lamb to take home. My wife brought some home in the spring of 2001, and we had it around Christmas time that year. Yummy.

This is one thread which ought, perhaps, to remain on track. What exercises me is that I have no idea how we, as individual citizens, can influence what happens to our world. I know we can cut down on heating and the like, but how do we force our governments to behave responsibly? Dubya and his pathetic London sidekick care only about remaining in power, and making Mount Everest sized sacks of money. I doubt their supposedly democratic opponents are any different at all. I really don't know what kind of solution there might be.

[prometheus]

Wikipedia is your friend:

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.


Religion

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, unbelief should be preferred.

[pianistimo]

it did occur to me that one might think God was in the room should the 'grand swell' on the organ be used to muffle cries of dental patients.  but, i for one, think that God is generous to his 'sheep' and quite the opposite to his enemies at the judgement day.  i would not make God an enemy for the sake of keeping the pain level quite bearable at some future point. 

[gruffalo]

i believe that God works with human intelligence. we can not just sit back and dump all our problems and say "hey, sort it out". we have to try and use our human capabilites, whatever the task may be. afterall, that is why God created us the way we are, the way we think, the way our bodies work, all the complexities that form our very existence.

[pianowolfi]

That's because the earth is not 6000 years old, as the bible claims, but 4.6 billion years.

Prometheus, I really badly would like to know where in the bible is said the the earth is 6000 years old.

[prometheus]

It is an estimate based on the genealogy. Maybe it is not that accurate. But even is it is off 40% then still you have only 8400 years. Compared with 4.7 billion years it is the same number. So the inaccuracy is irrelevant.

[pianistimo]

sort of coincides with the week, if a 1000 years are as a day to God.  that is somewhere in the bible.  the jews have kept accurate records of most everything (and dates) - and i suppose that one could also go back to egyptian times and then date things before that a bit more by geneology of the bible to gain a perspective of dating.

we know that our current year is 2006 AD (after the death) and that dating might be 3 years short or long - depending on who is telling you what.  but, from the companion bible - there is something or other in the index that shows an approximation of biblical history to the present age.

[wishful thinker]

we know that our current year is 2006 AD (after the death)

Wrong again, Madam.  AD stands for Anno Domini, the year of our Lord.  The year 1 was the year of the incarnation of Christ, not the first anniverary of his death. 

[prometheus]

I explained that to her before. She could not understand. She does not know when her best friend died according to Christianity...

I tried to correct her but I failed:

and, regarding prometheus correct latin terminology for AD - it still turns out in english to be after the death of Christ (which WAS the year of the Lord).  everyone sees things in their own language. 

i wish i knew latin.  might try to sometime soon. 

Seems she just wants to believe AD means something else...

And she can and will believe anything, no matter the odds against it.

[wishful thinker]

He "died" in AD 33.  Pianistimo, if AD meant "after death" and BC means "before Christ", what happens in between?  Do we have 33 years of nothing (perhaps we could start a thread on that subject  ?

[prometheus]

Pianistimo's brain is so flexible when it comes to this subject, it won't matter a bit to her, I guess.

Actually, you don't have 33 years of nothing. 1 AD and 1 BC are years next to each other. So at 1 BC it would be one year before Christ. And then 1 AD would be 1 year after his death.

So maybe Christ died in childbirth?

Maybe she wants to believe that Chirst was born a 36 year adult and only lived for one year, the NT does only talk about his last year anyway. But then the numbers are just a bit off. But I guess that wouldn't be a problem because the conventional numbers are slightly off as well.
King Herod died in 4 BC. But he was alive when Christ was born according to the scripture.

[pianolist]

This from a heathen. I thought you God-botherers believed that Christ did not die. So how could AD possibly stand for "After Death"? AR would be more appropriate, surely? And how did the medieval monks manage to coin a phrase like "After Death", when the English language had not even been developed? Or did Jesus actually speak in tongues, rather than Aramaic?

Incidentally, which languages DID Jesus speak? He obviously managed to converse with Pontius Pilate, although presumably a Roman administrator might have developed some command of the local lingo. But what is the received wisdom on Jesus' linguistic skills?

And have we yet touched on the year "0" versus year "1" controversy? This thread could run and run. 

[prometheus]

Actually, the whole concept of Jesus is kind of strange.

It is like god reincarnating part of herself as half a human, half a god. Then the human part of her, or now rather him, dies on the cross. Then his human life is resurrected and then he ascends into heaven.

Also, Jesus is the christ, the messiah. The messiah should be related to king David. Now the bible explains this because Joseph is from the bloodline of David, and thus all the other big names of the bible. But they never had sex, right? So Joseph isn't the father. Jesus is not part of the bloodline of David.

As for the holy spirit. Why did it abandon its literary career? Or did it? Which books are inspired by the holy spirit? Maybe Goethe or Shakespeare? There have been some auteurs that have claimed their work was so great that they must have been imspired by the holy spirit and they wrote it down as the co-auteur.

[pianolist]

Maybe Goethe or Shakespeare?

I don't know about Wolfgang, but my view William was Francis Bacon anyway. The spirit moves in a mysterious way!

[prometheus]

Also, a heathen is a polytheist. Not a non-believer.

As for climate change. The BBC reports about Nicholas Stern's report on the economic costs of global warming. I have been in a debate quite some times with people downplaying the costs.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

He claims to have measured, instead of estimated, the costs and the money we can safe tomorrow. The numbers are way bigger I imagined.

Also, he says that small changes today can save the lifes of millions of people...

[pianolist]

Also, a heathen is a polytheist. Not a non-believer.

Ah yes, you are quite right in a way, but it is also a colloquial expression in Britain for a non-believer, a foreigner, or pretty much anyone else you like, especially if they express humorous views opposed to your own. I might call my best friend a heathen, if he told me he had eaten five cream cakes in one sitting. I call him lots of things, actually.

Listening to the BBC this morning, I am a little more hopeful that at least the UK will begin to take global warming seriously. In the end, the other major powers will have to, at the bottom line because the weather will begin to damage Texas, and because the glaciers in China will melt, and large areas of the country will run out of water. And refugees will begin to knock on the western world's doors.

[prometheus]

I understand.

[wishful thinker]

Prometheus, Pianolist,  please stop trying to addle for Pianistimo's brain 

Now let's get this straight before she gets up.  AD does not mean "after death" it means Anno Domini "the Year of Our Lord" in Latin.  It is understandable that she doesn't know that, because she is American, and they have never heard of Latin.  Note to Pianistomo: Latin is a language that the Romans (who came from a place called Italy in Europe - its still there if you look it up) spoke.  Jesus may have been able to speak Latin, though more probably Greek, which was also common in the Roman Empire and His area, he knew enough Hebrew to read in the Temple also, though his native was tongue was Aramaic.

Yes the year 1 BC (but it wouldn't have been called that then, naturally) was the year before 1AD.  There was no year zero.

And this is the reason why the third millenium started on 1st Jan 2001, not 2000 (1st millenium 1-1000, second 1001-2000, third 2001-3000 etc).

And before anyone gets too anal about this, the dating happened along time after the event, so we do think its 4-5 years out. 

[pianistimo]

before i get up?  i got up at 3 am, as alistair can prove.  although, after a couple of hours posting, i was quite tired again.  but, then, thanks to schools in session, i was up at 6:30 again.  one half hour of sleep is like three hours to most people on some days.  but, we have the time change - so i'm feeling rather good.

now, about what languages.  john 19:20 says hebrew, latin, and greek were the languages used to write 'king of the jews' on the cross.  whether it's year of our lord (it still means the year he died and not the year he was born).  agreed that it's probably off a few years either way.

ps agreed that latin is not a requirement for undergraduate or graduate work here.  maybe it should be?  or in highschool.  but, just because a person doesn't know this or that doesn't mean that their points of view are invalid.  it just means they don't know what they don't know.  i never professed to know latin.  i would think you would be more offended if i said i knew it - and i didn't.

[wishful thinker]

whether it's year of our lord (it still means the year he died and not the year he was born). 

Sorry, cannot let this pass.  It is the yearfrom birth.  It cannot mean anything else.  33 years didn't just disappear from the chronology of mankind.

[ahinton]

before i get up?  i got up at 3 am, as alistair can prove.

Actually, dear forum(m)ers, I can't "prove" it as such, in that I do not live with "pianistimo" and have therefore not been able to check my watch while seeing her rise from bed each morning, but the timings of some of her posts do seem to bear out what she says about that.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Seems she just wants to believe AD means something else...

It's two-thirds of "ADA", isn't it?

Best,

Alistair

[pianolist]

It is understandable that she doesn't know that, because she is American, and they have never heard of Latin.

I think you'll find they have! Well, some of them. 

[arensky]

Latin was a language elective in my high school. A good friend (a star american football player) was taking the course and  I had a crush on a girl who was taking it so I took it for a semester. My shallow reasons for studying Latin notwithstanding, it contributed inestimably to the expansion of my vocabulary, and ergo my intellect.