Today October 10, is tenth day of the 'Tenth month of Gregorian calendar'; and is the World Metric Day.
One of the interesting things to me about calendrical examinations of ancient writings is that it does not matter if you ask: When did event X happen? When did the author of this work think it to happened? When did the author of this work under religious inspiration say this important date is/was? What calendar date did the author pick when communicating his religious message? When did the author of this work as guided by THE ONE TRUE INFALLIBLE GOD (insert appropriate titles as so desired) unerringly state that an event happened?
(Hopefully the above suggest varing degrees of assumption of historical accuracy and variing degrees of religious interpretation).In todays age of scientific reasoning. GOD is a 'solace to raise followership'. BUT movements of Sun-Earth-Moon till unknown were GOD's domain *while: with newer learning God has allowed MAN to reason and make ammenments/corrections*.
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20031010/05:58 AM(IST)
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda.
*****The New Calendar Rhyme*****
Thirty days in July, September:
April, June, November, December;
All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone:
Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine;
Till leap year gives the whole week READY:
Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy!And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! ***** ***** ***** *****
From: "P.Hill & E.Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dionysius Exiguus and Easter calculation
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:54:27 -0600
Sepp Rothwangl wrote:As a rational person easily will realize New Testament is religious faith-literature> and has less to do with actual history.It represents hope and expectations of Jews and early Xians.[...] > Their calendar is based on their interpretation of bible and the > astronomical.
Belief is rather the acceptance of a religious assumption as a historical reality.
I would rewrite that as: Religious belief is the acceptance of a religious assumption as a potential __future__ reality.
But I very much like the point that it is faith literature.
Many people seem to confuse literal historical interpretations with accepting religious messages, possibly in this case, Sepp does this and then denies them both. The opposite belief on both counts has certainly been represented on this list. Other combinations of accepting religious ideas, and historical events are possible. Certainly, posters on this list in the past have assumed, for example, that I combine assumptions about history in a certain way with religious ideas which has caused more confusion than was necessary.
One of the interesting things to me about calendrical examinations of ancient writings is that it does not matter if you ask: When did event X happen? When did the author of this work think it to happened? When did the author of this work under religious inspiration say this important date is/was? What calendar date did the author pick when communicating his religious message? When did the author of this work as guided by THE ONE TRUE INFALLIBLE GOD (insert appropriate titles as so desired) unerringly state that an event happened?
(Hopefully the above suggest varing degrees of assumption of historical accuracy and variing degrees of religious interpretation).
The above can be further complicated by changing 'author of work' to 'author of the particular passage' with more or less assumptions of divine or corrupting guidance.
But my point today is that in most of the cases the actual calendar answer is the same (or contains the same ambiguity) regardless of how a reader assumes the original reference came about.
It gets even more interesting when trying to decide what a later author (religious or otherwise) was doing when creating a date or when creating an entire calendar scheme. Notice that the discussions of what D.E. was trying to do rarely, if ever need to invoke an assumption about D.E.'s view of the accuracy of the various Gospels, the only question is how he used the literature as it existed.
On the D.E. question, the arguments that D.E. didn't understand what that he was defining what we call 1 (or 0) AD seem to me to be a stretch regardless whether he had a complete understanding of the algorithm or whether he called it a cycle.
-Paul
_________________________________________________________________
The heat is on! Catch the latest action. http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/formula2003/ Speed along with F1!
