Jean2 wrote:Showsni wrote:"It's the 20th second of the 47th minute of the sixth hour of the 27th day of the second month of the 2013th year since the birth of Christ."
Actually it's the 2012th year SINCE the (assumed) birth date of the Christ(1-01-01). Since years start on Year 1, it would be 1 year since birth by year 2.
Edit: Well, it's likely 1-12-25(Christmas day), although historians say Christ was born some 30 years before Christ.
Now, that last line is nonsense. First of all, theologians are quite certain that Jesus was born in spring. The description of the bible hints to that. Christmas day was chosen because it nicely overlapped with a bunch of old "(re)birth of the light/sun god" solstice festivals, easier to convert people that way.
Secondly, the year of Jesus' birth is simply not certain. It may be 30BCE, something like 5BCE or even a few years into the CE. There's also quite a lot of historians who conclude from the evidence (we know that the Roman leaders etc. in that time wrote down important things that happened, yet the first written source about Jesus is dated about a century after his death) that Christianity was first formed, with them believing in a Christ that did all his miracles in heaven, he was never born on earth. Then due to misinterpretations when writing the gospels, the story changed into one where Jesus walked the earth. Afterwards, they tried to fit this story into known history, which of course proved difficult.
So basically, we certainly don't know when he was born. We are not even completely certain if he ever was born on earth at all. The start of the calendar is a completely arbitrary date. Then again, the archaeologic time scale 'before present (BP)' uses 1950-01-01 as the 'present date' (apparently, because they won't be able to do C-14 dating for events that happened since then, as nuclear testing altered the isotope composition of the air, but I think they just don't want to change their dates every few years.)
Adacore wrote:Any format that has years, then months, then days is preferable to any other format - both for consistency and sorting purposes, as others have noted. Why don't we also do this with addresses (I know some countries do, but it's not standard in English)?
From less precise to more precise? Do you mean something like this on a letter?
City - Postal Code
Street - Number
Meh, it would work, but it doesn't really matter. I know that the post sorting machines used over here can usually do their thing whenever they find something that resembles a postal code anywhere on the letter.