|
|
Post by fcredblue on Feb 6, 2007 10:31:57 GMT -1
FACT!  |
|
|
|
Post by C@V on Feb 6, 2007 10:33:33 GMT -1
And why do you say this Nigel?
|
|
|
|
Post by fcredblue on Feb 6, 2007 10:37:28 GMT -1
because when we start a date we start at 1, so january is month 1 but in the begining of "time" which was recorded they would have called the first year "year 1" and not waited a year to call it "year 1"
|
|
|
|
Post by C@V on Feb 6, 2007 10:45:06 GMT -1
Anno Domini has provided this error however as the beginning of this measurement was 1 instead of 0 the year is in fact 2007.
|
|
|
|
Post by fcredblue on Feb 6, 2007 10:51:12 GMT -1
but the true date is 2006  |
|
|
|
Post by C@V on Feb 6, 2007 11:59:10 GMT -1
Not if the decided start date was 1 which it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Feb 6, 2007 11:59:54 GMT -1
but the true date is 2006 Depends which religion you're talking to. I believe the Jews are 3000-ish years ahead of us, and the Chinese are 2000-ish ahead of us too. |
|
|
|
Post by fcredblue on Feb 6, 2007 14:49:03 GMT -1
well most if not all of the world use the time of "2007" so are they in a way believing in christanity?
|
|
|
|
Post by C@V on Feb 6, 2007 14:51:37 GMT -1
but the true date is 2006 Depends which religion you're talking to. I believe the Jews are 3000-ish years ahead of us, and the Chinese are 2000-ish ahead of us too. But we're talking about the Christian calander Neko you donkey's ass! |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Feb 6, 2007 15:50:28 GMT -1
Show me where RB states that?  |
|
|
|
Post by ITFC Dudette6 on Feb 6, 2007 15:54:11 GMT -1
I've gone back in time?  |
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Feb 6, 2007 15:56:46 GMT -1
|
|
