The Calendar Conundrum

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,334
The Julian calendar, proposed (allegedly) and instituted by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C. was a reform of the old Roman Calendar based on a 10 month (March-December) calendar year started at the time of the Roman Empire founder, King Romulus (whenever THAT was). The mean calendar year equals 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 12 seconds; abbreviated 365.2423 days long. The reform added January and February, making a 12 month year of roughly 30 days each and shortened the average year by 0.0075 days to stop the drift of the calendar with respect to the equinoxes. Official records differed from astronomical observations by 159 years. The old Roman calendar, based on the old Egyptian and Estrucan methods of calculating solar days was off by 159 years. Since the mean calendar year is a know constant, the amount of drift can be determined. The amount of drift had been calculated to be 310 years for every 1 day the calendar differed.

Bede, an 8th century monk and historian (of questionable historicity) showed an error of >3 days (which equals >930 years) since institution of the Julian calendar. 930 years minus Bede's year of drift discovery (725 A.D.) equals a difference of -205 so, either Bede's calculations were off or the Julian calendar was instituted in 205 B.C. (or someone had been playing with the dates between Julian calendar start date of 46 B.C. and Bede's date of calculation: 725 A.D.).

1544731226947.png

Since Bede himself is a questionable historical character (meaning he may be one of those people Fomenko talked about as being a double for someone else), we have no way of verifying his calculations or even his existence. Still, it was known from several sources besides Bede that by the 8th century the Julian calendar did not correspond with the mean calendar. Since we didn't have Newtons calculations of the planetary bodies until the 17th century, who knows if the calculations for the mean calendar year were even correct?

The Julian calendar still contained the problem of drift and in 1200 A.D., Roger Bacon, a Franciscan friar and Aristotelian philosopher/scholar/naturalist, estimated the Julian calendar to be off by 7-8 days (1 day= 310 years of drift so 2,170-2,480 years difference!)

1544731823607.png

Such drift was seriously affecting when religious holidays, especially Easter, was celebrated. By the 16th century (1582), a civil calendar named after Pope Gregory XIII was proposed. The Pope introduced the calendar on October 4th, 1582 A.D. Since the drift amounted to 10 days difference, the Pope decided to just rip the band-aid off, as it were, in one short shriek so that October 4th, 1582 A.D. was immediately followed by October 15th, 1582. It had been suggested that the adjustment should take place slowly (adding 1 day every 310 years) but the Pope chose a more instantaneous calendar reform. This led to riots as the simple folk cried "Give us back our 11 days!" Like all change, the Gregorian calendar was slow to be adopted. Every country, principality, kingdom, and institution had their own calendars and many were reluctant to adopt anything proposed by the Roman Catholic Church. The rural folk paid little attention to calendar days and followed the rhythms of the seasons for planting and harvesting. The Catholics had a Saints calendar that kept track of the year by how long it was between days of venerated or canonized persons.

1544731881521.png

The French, a mostly Catholic territory at the time, decided to use their own calendar in order to defy the power of the papacy and aristocracy. Fabre d'Eglantine, a French actor and politician (supposedly 2 categories although they're hard to differentiate from one another), is credited with what is known as the Rural Calendar. He was mainly the P.R. voice and not the brains behind it's creation. "On the abolition of the Gregorian Calendar in France he sat on the committee entrusted with the creation of the French Republic's French Republican Calendar. The calendar was designed by the politician and agronomist Gilbert Romme, although it is usually attributed to Fabre d'Eglantine, who invented the names of the months. This Calendar featured a ten-day week so that Sunday would be forgotten as a religious day, and the months were named after the intrinsic qualities of the seasons. He contributed a large part of the new nomenclature; for example, the months of (Prairial and Floréal, as well as the days Primidi and Duodi).”

calendar_1.jpg

He also advocated for a decimal system of counting and, for a while (it never caught on) clocks/watches displayed both decimal and duodecimal time. Mnemonics were invented to help people remember the new calendar counting system but they quickly devolved into "Thirty days hath September, all the rest I can't remember".
The Republican calendar year began the day the autumnal equinox occurred in Paris, and had twelve months of 30 days each, which were given new names based on nature, principally having to do with the prevailing weather in and around Paris.
  • Autumn:
    • Vendémiaire (from French vendange, derived from Latin vindemia, "grape harvest"), starting 22, 23, or 24 September
    • Brumaire (from French brume, "mist"), starting 22, 23, or 24 October
    • Frimaire (From French frimas, "frost"), starting 21, 22, or 23 November
  • Winter:
    • Nivôse (from Latin nivosus, "snowy"), starting 21, 22, or 23 December
    • Pluviôse (from French pluvieux, derived from Latin pluvius, "rainy"), starting 20, 21, or 22 January
    • Ventôse (from French venteux, derived from Latin ventosus, "windy"), starting 19, 20, or 21 February
  • Spring:
    • Germinal (from French germination), starting 20 or 21 March
    • Floréal (from French fleur, derived from Latin flos, "flower"), starting 20 or 21 April
    • Prairial (from French prairie, "meadow"), starting 20 or 21 May
  • Summer:
    • Messidor (from Latin messis, "harvest"), starting 19 or 20 June
    • Thermidor (or Fervidor*) (from Greek thermon, "summer heat"), starting 19 or 20 July
    • Fructidor (from Latin fructus, "fruit"), starting 18 or 19 August
In Britain, a contemporary wit mocked the Republican Calendar by calling the months: Wheezy, Sneezy and Freezy; Slippy, Drippy and Nippy; Showery, Flowery and Bowery; Hoppy, Croppy and Poppy. The Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle suggested somewhat more serious English names in his 1837 work The French Revolution: A History, namely Vintagearious, Fogarious, Frostarious, Snowous, Rainous, Windous, Buddal, Floweral, Meadowal, Reapidor, Heatidor, and Fruitidor. Like the French originals, they are neologisms suggesting a meaning related to the season.
The French calendar was used from 1793-1805 and again for 18 days by the Paris Commune in 1871 to remove all religious and royalist influences from the calendar. In their religious spite they made 10 day weeks (instead of the current 7) to confuse church goers as to which day was Sunday. :)
The Soviet calendar added 5&6 day work weeks between 1929-1940. Greece adapted Gregorian use, finally, in 1923.

Not all parts of the world were using even the Julian calendar so you can imagine the confusion caused by international trade and communications. Not forgetting the people born on those missing 11 days caused by the Gregorian calendar reform. Some official documents of the time register ships leaving on October 11th and arriving on October 5th. Genealogies were also not consistent with the time change and not everyone complied with the record keeping of the time. If you have a European ancestry and are investigating your ancestry, keep that in mind (and probably just skip over that time frame to the 11 day period before Gregorian became official to avoid confusion). The Solar Hijiri, an astronomical equinox-based lunar calendar used in Iran and Afghanistan began in 622 A.D.

In 1930, a world calendar was proposed to correct the deficits of the Gregorian calendar but was rejected...again. Recommendations for modifying Julian calendar based on true motions of the sun and moon were rejected at the 1545 A.D. Council of Trent. Aloysius Lilius, a Calabrian astronomer, chronologist, and doctor came up with the Gregorian calendar which a Jesuit mathematician and astronomer modified after Lilius death into what we have now. Current consensus is that our calendar is off by THOUSANDS of years, not hundreds.

1544735267966.png
1544736694247.png

The drift of 10 days at the beginning of Gregorian calendar = 3,100 years from time of Council of Nicea (325A.D.) Mysteriously, the Gregorian calendar involves cycles of 400 years called "Doomsday Rule". Since we didn't have a Doomsday in 1982 (400 years after initiation of Gregorian calendar), one can only wonder as to the cryptic cycle of 400 years embodied in our current Gregorian calendrical system.

Basically, with all the changes to our day numbering system, indecipherable calculations, stolen time, and questionable historical persons contributing to all those mentioned inconsistencies, our current timeline is inscrutable and irreconcilable with available history. The best we can do, imho, is to go with what we've got and realize that our history can't possibly be reconciled with the current "official" documents.

1544737233168.png1544737302617.png1544737345021.png1544737735391.png1544736827849.pngcalendar.jpg
1544737920367.png1544737396989.png1544739022212.png1544739299267.png1544738580665.png1544736973901.png
1544738091985.png
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,760
Reactions
19,509
I don't know much as far as counting minutes, days, weeks and months goes, but as far as general counting of years, I wish they gave us back the missing ones.

2018... what a clever way to reduce the number of years needing justification. Anything BC sounds sounds so a part of a different epoch altogether.
And those missing originals... what dates did they display?
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
656
Reactions
1,393
Hmmm. I always thought the months added were July and August, named for Julius and Augustus.

It's obvious the ones following August are off by two. (Sept =7, Oct=8, Nov =9, dec=10), but I am not familiar with the root of the earlier months.
 

UnusualBean

Well-known member
Messages
259
Reactions
1,002
Where is this consensus that the calendar is missing thousands of years coming from? There is a very solid case for 297 added years.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
580
Reactions
3,157
Was just looking through some old medieval chronicles, and one thing that's obvious is that dates where often given in two forms, Anno Mundi, and Anno Christi.

Whatever steps were involved in fabracting a new timeline, it looks like one of the concepts that were lost after 1700/1800 is the idea of a very young world.

Looks like people basically agreed that the entire world was only created 5000-7000 years ago. Maybe it was only the beginning of the existence of humans, but there was definitely the cultural consensus around those dates. So imagine living with the concept of being in such a young world, which means the dates actually provided people with a meaningful framework. Everything has a beginning. Then from the above article it appears people started to use Anno Christi because it was easier to form a consensus around that date, but still used Anno Mundi as a reference, because it's obviously extremely important to know when things started. Nowadays we are living in a void, thrown into endless space with an eternal past and eternal future, and meaningless present.

Throwing away the Anno Mundi was an important goal of the scientific establishment, and marks the end of our collective memories. The 7000 year number would also put other calendars into a new perspective, and it would certainly be interesting to research the 4 vedic cycles for example, and bring them together with the 7 ages in Christianity or the 5 in greek mythology. The idea of cycles was common sense, but hinduism has probably made things too mythological and symbolic; I wonder where the notion of cycles originally came from and who told humans about them. There's definitely a bigger plan for us, but it's not clear where we are standing or heading towards.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
344
Reactions
1,560
I've always wondered the quintessential stoner question of "how does one measure time?" Obviously, the only way is to calculate such an abstraction is based on astronomical cycles and daylight/nighttime intervals. The only way you can appropriately determine if the present calendrical system has any basis in reality is by astronomical observation.

Personally I've been considering actually doing this myself:
Go to any major site bearing some variation of Solar temple, sun temple, sun pyramid on either an equinox or solstice day. The site probably has some form of alignment feature that you can view the sun through. With your mind, shoot a beam from that point on the earth into the sun and record the position of the sun in proximity to both the planets and constellations. Think of that as determining "what time it is" on a giant cellestial clock face. From there you can backtrack the revolutions of the cellestial clock and eventually reconstruct what we would consider to be a calendar.

Measuring the progress of absolute time is impossible, any competent mathematician knows that is beyond mortal conception. But, we can measure relative time in relation to physical positions. Maybe you can measure the time of civilizations by where they place their observatories and when they first begin measuring their movement relative to the stars.

Who knows for certain what calendar we are using and what observation points are being used. Vatican City, Greenwich, Geneva?
 
OP
whitewave

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,334
Different civilizations had different Anno Mundi type dates based on when THEIR world/civilization began. The Romans (and Russians, although wiki doesn't acknowledge them) had an Anno Mundi of around 7000 years. The Romans had based their calendar dates on earlier counting systems which it looks like they didn't fully understand. Most "ancient" dating systems were based on years of rulers such as "in the 15th year of King Bigshot....". Romans did the same thing with the founding of Rome by Romulus. That was their year one. Christians did the same thing with their king (Christ) by starting over with year one from the date of his death. That's why it was so important to the RCC to know when to celebrate Easter.

Since it was also common practice to backdate events (and genealogies) to lend an air of established stability/antiquity, sometimes people just fudged entire dates from thin air.

Unless we can find their original very first calendar (not likely), we really have no way of determining what year it truly is.

As an interesting aside: a 19th century Christian writer, S.L.L. Johnson, proposed that the "rapture" had already occurred in his time and that we were now entering the 1000 years reign of Christ on earth. Watching the nightly news, I have to disagree with him on that but he does give an extensive explanation of how he calculated the age of man's existence on earth (being 6-7 thousand years). Personal opinion is that we are not the first incarnation of man and, while the earth itself MAY be millions of years old, man in his current form is not. There is ample evidence of previous civilizations that had achieved at least a level of development equal to our own. Using various cultural "myths" about earth cycles, I believe our Adam and Eve were the chosen bloodline of survivors from the last cataclysm. No proof, of course; it just ties up a lot of loose ends about various anachronisms in our timeline/history.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,760
Reactions
19,509
Some elderly Russians thinking it to be true is hardly a consensus.
LOL. Who are we expecting this consensus from? Those same "historians" who altered our history? People had to count their years somehow prior to he birth of Christ. Yet, all the original documents which could contain BC counting system, conveniently did not survive, and ended up being replaced with copies of the copies.
 

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
344
Reactions
1,560
@whitewave,
But where is the definitive moment that a civilization becomes aware of time and the necessity to record its' passage? This is the exact moment we started recording, this is why, and this is how. Ptolemy's Almagest does a good job of explaining the how, and the Mayans do a decent job of explaining the why. But nobody has moment zero, there is no definitive calendrical start date that anyone could pin down. Fomenko can write a billion pages about phantom time and calendrical discrepancies, but, where did any of them begin? We could be year one billion, or 1000. How would we know? That is why science is trying to seize the throne of omniscience by definitively stating "we know when the Universe and all matter was created, we measured the neutrino decay rate, we are infallible in our calculations!"

It takes some serious balls to call the atomic clock the most accurate time keeping device. How do you know when the Uranium was created? The decay rate of something that you aren't absolutely sure of the initial age or quantity of is super presumptuous.

Take our western January 1'st calendrical date, super arbitrary. Why not December 22'nd? The day after the date of the Winter Solstice being a logical astronomical event culminating the end and subsequent beginning of the year. The period of daylight becoming shorter and shorter until finally daylight periods start increasing again.

A civilization that stops looking up at the sky forgets where it exists in time. The Zodiacal constellations are like the numerals on a watch face. Myths are just encoded mnemonics like ROY G. BIV or Easter Bunnies Get Dizzy After Easter.

The Three Kings Caspar, Balthazar, and Melchior followed the star to the manger in Bethlehem to attend to the birth of the newborn king. In what world could anyone not interpret the Sun as being the newborn king of the sky after long periods of darkness during winter?

Time is truly a delusion we all participate in unwittingly. The Gregorian calendar is the crowning achievement of that delusion.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
580
Reactions
3,157
Different civilizations had different Anno Mundi type dates based on when THEIR world/civilization began.
Well, A.M. means "the beginning of creation", not "the beginning of our civilization", it's a Christian term.

But when questioning whether there was any consensus outside of christian groups, there are other signs of a creation date being very recent, with the Mayan calendar and Zoroastrianism (Dating creation - Wikipedia) fitting roughly into the time frame of a few thousand years.

Zoroastrianism involves a 12,000-year cosmogony and chronology, often divided into four ages as outlined in the Bundahishn.[34][35][36] The first age lasted for 3,000 years and included the spiritual creation by Ahura Mazda, followed by the physical creation of 3,000 years when evil entered the world (see Angra Mainyu)
Ahura Mazda first created seven abstract heavenly beings called Amesha Spentas, who support him and represent beneficent aspects, along with numerous yazads, lesser beings worthy of worship. He then created the universe itself in order to ensnare evil. Ahura Mazda created the floating, egg-shaped universe in two parts: first the spiritual (menog) and 3,000 years later, the physical (getig).
One thing that comes up often is the idea of 4 cycles. The 7 ages in Christianity could be originally based on 4+4 cycles, with the fourth and fifth being the lowest/most physical cycle, so counted at one. I wonder whether one reason for the church's rewriting of history was to censor the idea of cycles and made everything appear to be a one-way road into heaven/hell.

The only cosmology that speaks of a very old earth is supposedely the Hindu one, but I have never seen direct quotes, and it appears to me the vague language made everyone go wild on the interpretations. There's an ongoing discussion of the length of the Yugas (going from thousands to millions of years), so I think there's basically no direct quote in the scriptures.

If there are cycles, and if the cycles are only a couple of thousand years each, and there's a reset after the completion of each cycle, than it makes sense we can't live in a world with a very long history. And imho everything looks like those cycles exist. Whether it's 7,000 years or 40,000, I think those short timeframes are more likely than millions of years.

The "Doomsday Rule" appears to be simply a modern calculation method, and doesn't refer to cycles. But micro-cycles within the bigger cycles seem likely to me, especially because the last 1000 years have seen a couple of them apparently.

It seems many ancient cycle calendars agree that we are in the "darkest" cycle or most physical cycle, which would probably explain why we have forgotten where we are.

Another problem with years is that one year 10,000 years ago could have meant something different than it means nowadays, depending on how many days a year had, how time was percieved, and whether there were even different seasons or day and night.

I agree with KD that 2018 makes everything before the year 0 as almost non-existent. I also think it's ridiculous for entire civilizations to base a calendar on the supposed birth date of a single man who could only have operated locally in a very constricted area, it doesn't really make sense, except if the church needed some reason to create a new concept of the past. It's also interesting to ask when the A.D. idea really began. Certainly not during the lifetime of Jesus.

So the first guy to talk about time in terms of A.D. was Dionysius Exiguus in 500 AD. Unfortunately:

"However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus; much less does he explain or justify the underlying date."[17]
It wasn't until 800 AD that people started to rely on this dating format, and I think with the new chronology in mind there's reason to believe in reality it wasn't until the end of the "middle ages" that people really relied on it. The process started in central Europe and it took until 1700 until Russia followed, just a couple of decades after Russia became part of the invisible empire, annihilating the Tartar civilization.

It has also been speculated by Georges Declercq[21] that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was intended to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time, it was believed by some that the resurrection of the dead and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. The old Anno Mundi calendar theoretically commenced with the creation of the world based on information in the Old Testament. It was believed that, based on the Anno Mundi calendar, Jesus was born in the year 5500 (or 5500 years after the world was created) with the year 6000 of the Anno Mundi calendar marking the end of the world.[22][23] Anno Mundi 6000 (approximately AD 500) was thus equated with the resurrection and the end of the world[24] but this date had already passed in the time of Dionysius.
What if Jesus appeared 500 years before the switch into the last age ("Kali Yuga") and told people of the nearing end of the era, but it was misintepreted to mean "the end of the world"? If Jesus lived ca 1100 AD then the end of the last era would be around 1500-1600, which is surprisingly the time when the dubious and opaque middle ages ended, and many maps show cataclysmic changes. I think it's also possible that Jesus in reality presented a broad movement of people keeping some ancient knowledge about the cycles and our position in them, but he was singled out.
Post automatically merged:

Zoroastrianism and dating the world

The tradition of the coming Saviours, thus triplicated, is set in a framework of cosmic history, whereby "limited time" was identified with a "world year" divided into periods of 1000 years each. It is generally held that this concept of the world year is to be attributed to Babylonian speculation concerning recurrent "great years" repeating themselves monotonously throughout time.36 In considering this development of the legend one enters therefore into the historical period of the faith, after it had been adopted in western Iran. The Zoroastrian texts vary as to how many millennia make up the world-year. Some give the figure as nine (three times three being a favoured Zoroastrian number); others as twelve, corresponding to the twelve months of the natural year and the twelve signs of the zodiac. There are, however, grounds for thinking that the original figure was rather 6ooo years,as a figure which was increased to 9,000 or 12,000 as scholastics elaborated the scheme. Certainly it is only within the last 6ooo years that any events are represented as taking place upon this earth.39 The full scheme of the 12,ooo-year period, as preserved in the Bundahisn, is as follows: During the first 3000 years Ohrmazd became aware of Ahriman; and knowing through his omniscience of the struggle which must be, he then created his creation in the menog state. Ahriman, afflicted always with belated knowledge, became aware in his turn of Ohrmazd, and "because of his desire to hurt and his malicious nature"40 attacked him and his creation. His onslaught was in vain, and he "rushed back to darkness and miscreated many devs, the destroyers of creation". 41 Ohrmazd then offered peace, which his malignant adversary refused; whereat Ohrmazd proposed a time for contest between them "in the state of Mixture" (pad gumezisn), 42 namely the following gooo years. To this Ahriman, not able to foresee the outcome, agreed, and a pact was made between them (which is duly watched over by Mihr, lord of the covenant).43 Accordingly during the second 3000 years Ohrmazd established his creation physically, pad getig;44 and at the beginning of the third set of three millennia, that is, in the 6oooth year, Ahriman attacked, bringing death and evil into the world. "But foreseeing this Ahura Mazda has already at the beginning of the second period created Zoroaster's fravasi ... and has thus initiated the act of salvation."45 At the end of the third period the prophet is born in the getig state, and in the year 9,000, the beginning of the fourth period, he receives the revelation of the Good Religion, and the final struggle for redemption is joined. 46 It is during this last period that the three Sosyants (Saosyants}, Zoroaster's sons, are born, towards the end of each millennium (1o,ooo, 11,ooo, 12,ooo}, each contributing to the process of redemption. The hope of a coming Saviour, thus triplicated, appears to have become interwoven, however, with a quite different tradition, which probably existed in Iran in one form or another long before Zoroaster taught. This is a tradition, widely attested among different peoples of the world, that there had once been a golden age on earth, from which pinnacle of happiness and wellbeing mankind had thereafter steadily descended, to reach the troubles and sorrows of the present age. Such a tradition could readily be reconciled with the doctrine of the originally perfect creation of Ohrmazd, corrupted by Ahriman; but it conflicted with the fundamental optimism of Zoroastrianism, whereby after the prophet had received his revelation there should have been a steady spreading of knowledge of the Good Religion and hence of righteousness among mankind, and therefore a drawing near of Fraso.k;;,r;;,ti. No doubt, however, a prophetic literature existed earlier among the pagan Iranians which embodied the pessimistic tradition of a decline and fail-a tradition that embraced the legend of the golden age of Yima; and such is the tenacity of ancient Iran that in time Zoroastrian priests evolved a new prophetic literature of their own, in which the two world-views, pessimistic and optimistic, were reconciled in a pattern that repeated itself every thousand years during the fourth period of the world-year. This prophetic literature is best exemplified, among the surviving Pahlavi texts, in the Zand i Vahman Yast and the ]amasp Nii.mag, but has left its traces widely also in other works.47 In the V ahman Y ast the prophecy is represented as gained through vision (visionary literature is widely associated with prophecy among preliterate peoples).4B Zoroaster sees in a dream a tree from which seven branches grow, and this dream is interpreted for him in the following manner by Ohrmazd himself:49 "0 Spitaman Zardust, the tree whose trunk you have seen is the world which I, Ohrmazd, created; and the seven branches which you have seen are the seven times which will come. That of gold is the reign of King Vistasp ... That of silver is the reign of Ardasir the Kay, who is called Vahman, son of Spentodad ... 5o That of copper is the reign of [ValakhS] the Arsacid king, who will remove from the world existing heresies ... 51 That of brass is the reign of Ardasir [the Sasanian] and [his son] king Shabuhr, and Adurbad ... of the true religion. That of lead is the reign of king Vahram Gor, who will make apparent the spirit of joy. That of steel is the reign of king Khosrau, son of Kavad ... That of iron is the vile rule of devs with dishevelled hair, of the seed of Wrath, 0 Spitaman Zardust, at the end of your millennium". In the summary version of the prophecy preserved in the Dinkard (on the authority of the lost A vest an Sudgar N ask) 52 there are only four times, of gold, silver, steel and iron. It seems that the tradition of four ages ·of metal, "which mark the progressive decline of humanity, was current in antiquity and that its origin is very old. It was accepted in Greece at the time of Hesiod, that is to say from the 8th century ... ". It is possible that the association of the successive ages ·with metals in Iran was due to foreign, that is, Hellenistic influences, and that the enlarging of four ages to seven was similarly the result of alien contacts, in this case with Babylonian astrologers, who associated the "great years" with the seven planets, and hence produced a doctrine of seven "times" .54 In the elaborated scheme of the V ahman Y ast the three additional ages -copper, brass and lead-were inserted before the grim iron age of the present, which for the redactors of the Pahlavi works was the time of foreign rule, of the overlordship of the Wrath-begotten Arabs. Whatever the divergences in detail, the general pattern of the prophecy is the same in all versions, that of a slow but steady decline, age by age, in both standards of human life and conditions of the surrounding world, a decline which is on occasion checked but never wholly arrested by the actions of noble and heroic men. The final age of iron will not only be the "basest of times" for mankind, but will see the earth itself contracting, crops failing, rains lessening and animals growing stunted.
Taken from A History of Zoroastrianism, The Early Period p.285 onwards

I also want to expand on why I think Hinduism is a dumbed down version of Zoroastrianism:


In Zoroastrianism the reason behind the creation of God is not left to speculation or intellectual curiosity. Unlike in Hinduism which explains the creation as the play of God, in Zoroastrian world view creation is part of a grand plan orchestrated by God to deal with the problem of evil. Being omniscient, He created the worlds and its beings essentially to execute His plan to isolate and combat evil and get rid of it eventually. According to His plan, the world will come to an end in a great conflagration at the end of the fourth period when He would establish His authority, segregate the primeval evil and destroy it from the material plane. Humans were created as a part of the agreement between Him and the fravashis or the guardian angels that they would become part of His army against the evil and play an important role in destroying it. In the process they would also benefit by overcoming their shortcomings in the material world and become perfect beings fit to live in a perfect world marked by perfect order, harmony, truth and righteousness. source
First, zoroastrianism is regarded as being a precursor to Hinduism, and there are many parallels. Just like the concrete time periods have been ommited from Hinduism, so has the war against evil became something people simply have to accept because in Hinduism there is no fundamental problem with evil, it is a necessary part of creation. This means there is no movement in creation, no purpose, no change. But in Zoroastrianism there is a definite purpose, and the prospect of growth, change, rejuvination.

Also in regards to dating, the infinite time periods proposed by some authors in Hinduism make humans irrelevant in the broader scheme. Even the change in Zoroastrianism from 6,000 to 12,000 years seems to stem from a corrupted influence (Babylonian astrologers), as well as the monotonic 1,000 year periods of eternal repetion. After all the 6,000 years are in perfect alignment with the Christian Anno Mundi calendars as well as Mayan dating.
 
Last edited:
OP
whitewave

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,334
@Paracelsus, I believe the reason that January 1st was considered the beginning of the new year was due to a Roman custom of when they changed out consuls. The people who were already in were in favor of adding the 2 extra months (January, February) because it gave them extra time as consuls whereas the people who were ready for a new election were opposed to the addition. We actually carry on this tradition of inaugurating a new president in January rather than right after an election in November. The beginning of a new year was marked in different ways (pagan feast days, Christian holy days, equinoxes, etc.) by different peoples and countries. Our current standardization designating C.E. (current era) did not become mostly universal until the 20th century. I think the Ethiopians are about the last hold-out.

Some writers suggest that April Fools' originated because in the Middle Ages, New Year's Day was celebrated on March 25 in most European towns,[8] through a holiday that in some areas of France, specifically, ended on April 1,[9][10] and those who celebrated New Year's Eve on January 1 made fun of those who celebrated on other dates by the invention of April Fools' Day.[9] The use of January 1 as New Year's Day became common in France only by the mid-16th century,[6] and the date was not adopted officially until 1564, thanks to the Edict of Roussillon.
April Fool's Day may go back to the Genesis Flood narrative In a 1908 edition of the Harper's Weekly cartoonist Bertha R. McDonald wrote:
Authorities gravely back with it to the time of Noah and the ark. The London Public Advertiser of March 13, 1769, printed: "The mistake of Noah sending the dove out of the ark before the water had abated, on the first day of April, and to perpetuate the memory of this deliverance it was thought proper, whoever forgot so remarkable a circumstance, to punish them by sending them upon some sleeveless errand similar to that ineffectual message upon which the bird was sent by the patriarch".[11] (wiki)​

@dreamtime, Of course there's only one actual beginning of the world but different civilizations have different legends about when that was (and how it started) and they don't call it by the Christian designation of Ammo Mundi, as you pointed out; I was simply using the term as a reference to differentiate it from Anno Domini which is meaningful only to Christians.

This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with AD counting years from the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the era. There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC. This dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor, but was not widely used until after 800.[9][10]

The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table. His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.[15] The last year of the old table, Diocletian 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, AD 532. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year—he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".[16] Thus Dionysius implied that Jesus incarnation occurred 525 years earlier, without stating the specific year during which his birth or conception occurred. "However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus; much less does he explain or justify the underlying date."[17]

Bonnie J. Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or incarnation. Among the sources of confusion are:[10]
  • In modern times, incarnation is synonymous with the conception, but some ancient writers, such as Bede, considered incarnation to be synonymous with the Nativity.
  • The civil or consular year began on 1 January but the Diocletian year began on 29 August (30 August in the year before a Julian leap year).
  • There were inaccuracies in the lists of consuls.
  • There were confused summations of emperors' regnal years.
It is not known how Dionysius established the year of Jesus's birth. Two major theories are that Dionysius based his calculation on the Gospel of Luke, which states that Jesus was "about thirty years old" shortly after "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar", and hence subtracted thirty years from that date, or that Dionysius counted back 532 years from the first year of his new table.[18][19][20] It has also been speculated by Georges Declercq [21] that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Christ was intended to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world. At the time, it was believed by some that the resurrection of the dead and end of the world would occur 500 years after the birth of Jesus. The old Anno Mundi calendar theoretically commenced with the creation of the world based on information in the Old Testament. It was believed that, based on the Anno Mundi calendar, Jesus was born in the year 5500 (or 5500 years after the world was created) with the year 6000 of the Anno Mundi calendar marking the end of the world.[22][23] Anno Mundi 6000 (approximately AD 500) was thus equated with the resurrection and the end of the world[24] but this date had already passed in the time of Dionysius. With these various styles, the same day could, in some cases, be dated in 1099, 1100 or 1101. (wiki)

Interesting point about how time might have been measured prior to any previous cataclysms. It may very well be that there were not seasons as we know them and maybe people had no concept of time at all. If food grows year round and you're not pushed to get a harvest in before freezing weather, you may not pay much attention to passage of days.

I just thought it was interesting that Doomsday Rule was named with so provocative and foreboding a title. They couldn't just call it "Calculation Method"? The official explanation for why it's called Doomsday Rule (especially since it's pretty much a useless calculation method that serves no real purpose) doesn't ring true to me. I suspect there may have been some other reason for its name.
 

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
344
Reactions
1,560
The wheels of time:
Mayan-
Antikythera mechanism-

These calendars actually make sense, because they merely "mark time" without defining time. They approach calendars as existing abstractly within physical time and not being defined by "an event." There are epicycles, and meaningful events. But they view a calendar like an engine, there is a top dead center and a corresponding bottom stroke, but these are only reference points. Just as you wouldn't worship the indexing notch on a crankshaft, they didn't worship notable astrological events.

Trying to say Jesus was born year 5500 is totally arbitrary. He was born year 5500 of what? Time is infinite like energy. Was he born 5500 years after the creation of the 3D physical world? Was he born in X place when the stars, sun, and moon were in X configuration above the horizon at X angle? This 12000 year cycle began on X date exactly because the solar temple cornerstone had the perfect angular alignment with Sirius.

All dates are meaningless without an astrological index point. It's like a highly accurate distributor cap just being put on and allowed to fire in any random order. Like July 4, 1776 - is this date 1776 years after the beginning of recorded history?

The movie Interstellar is definitely reinforcing the space delusion but the tesseract sequence is kinda good, and what I'm trying to get at. How do you accurately index time outside of time?

The Mayan wheels or an Astrolabe make sense as a calculation tool to take a known point and arrive at an unknown point. Our calendar is just linear nonsense, we use squares on a 2D surface.
 

UnusualBean

Well-known member
Messages
259
Reactions
1,002
LOL. Who are we expecting this consensus from? Those same "historians" who altered our history? People had to count their years somehow prior to he birth of Christ. Yet, all the original documents which could contain BC counting system, conveniently did not survive, and ended up being replaced with copies of the copies.
That's my exact question. OP said there was a consensus on the matter, and gosh darn it I wanna know who decided that lol
 

Verity

Well-known member
Messages
164
Reactions
734
Was just looking through some old medieval chronicles, and one thing that's obvious is that dates where often given in two forms, Anno Mundi, and Anno Christi.

Whatever steps were involved in fabracting a new timeline, it looks like one of the concepts that were lost after 1700/1800 is the idea of a very young world.

Looks like people basically agreed that the entire world was only created 5000-7000 years ago. Maybe it was only the beginning of the existence of humans, but there was definitely the cultural consensus around those dates. So imagine living with the concept of being in such a young world, which means the dates actually provided people with a meaningful framework. Everything has a beginning. Then from the above article it appears people started to use Anno Christi because it was easier to form a consensus around that date, but still used Anno Mundi as a reference, because it's obviously extremely important to know when things started. Nowadays we are living in a void, thrown into endless space with an eternal past and eternal future, and meaningless present.

Throwing away the Anno Mundi was an important goal of the scientific establishment, and marks the end of our collective memories. The 7000 year number would also put other calendars into a new perspective, and it would certainly be interesting to research the 4 vedic cycles for example, and bring them together with the 7 ages in Christianity or the 5 in greek mythology. The idea of cycles was common sense, but hinduism has probably made things too mythological and symbolic; I wonder where the notion of cycles originally came from and who told humans about them. There's definitely a bigger plan for us, but it's not clear where we are standing or heading towards.

Interesting that you brought up the notion that perhaps our age (as a race with collective memory) dates back about 6,000yrs or so.
Savitri Devi, who moved to India and described her Greek/French/Italian self as pure 'Indo-European', (she went back to 'The Source' so to speak) kept referring to the Aryan race as 'the youngest' race on the planet in her book 'Lightning and the Sun'.
I took her comment as a random puzzle piece at the time.
I'm only partially familiar with the Vedic texts and their cycles but I do know enough to say they play a very important role in the history of our origins. It's difficult to expound any further until I have read more, but suspect there is something glaring out at whomever asks the right questions within those texts.
Post automatically merged:

It would be a real shocker if our world was indeed under some 8,000 years old. So much for all them calendars.
This is the thing. Perhaps it has been the world of others for longer than we have been here. It puts Zecharia Sitchin/J. P. Farrell's ideas of interplanetary warfare in to some sort of context.
Post automatically merged:

@whitewave,
But where is the definitive moment that a civilization becomes aware of time and the necessity to record its' passage? This is the exact moment we started recording, this is why, and this is how. Ptolemy's Almagest does a good job of explaining the how, and the Mayans do a decent job of explaining the why. But nobody has moment zero, there is no definitive calendrical start date that anyone could pin down. Fomenko can write a billion pages about phantom time and calendrical discrepancies, but, where did any of them begin? We could be year one billion, or 1000. How would we know? That is why science is trying to seize the throne of omniscience by definitively stating "we know when the Universe and all matter was created, we measured the neutrino decay rate, we are infallible in our calculations!"

It takes some serious balls to call the atomic clock the most accurate time keeping device. How do you know when the Uranium was created? The decay rate of something that you aren't absolutely sure of the initial age or quantity of is super presumptuous.

Take our western January 1'st calendrical date, super arbitrary. Why not December 22'nd? The day after the date of the Winter Solstice being a logical astronomical event culminating the end and subsequent beginning of the year. The period of daylight becoming shorter and shorter until finally daylight periods start increasing again.

A civilization that stops looking up at the sky forgets where it exists in time. The Zodiacal constellations are like the numerals on a watch face. Myths are just encoded mnemonics like ROY G. BIV or Easter Bunnies Get Dizzy After Easter.

The Three Kings Caspar, Balthazar, and Melchior followed the star to the manger in Bethlehem to attend to the birth of the newborn king. In what world could anyone not interpret the Sun as being the newborn king of the sky after long periods of darkness during winter?

Time is truly a delusion we all participate in unwittingly. The Gregorian calendar is the crowning achievement of that delusion.
Almost as if days (daze), seconds (as opposed to firsts) the minute (as opposed to the enormous) and decayed(s) were planted on us as a form of spell.
I had a watch back in the early 90's and when it broke I never replaced it. It felt as if Big Brother was watching me, always having to be somewhere or get somewhere, time is money etc. (though still at school). The relief when it broke was great- I felt free.
Seems to me as if time as we know it today is imperative to the materialistic commercial slave system we're currently trapped within.
 
Last edited:

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
656
Reactions
1,393
Interesting that you brought up the notion that perhaps our age (as a race with collective memory) dates back about 6,000yrs or so.
Savitri Devi, who moved to India and described her Greek/French/Italian self as pure 'Indo-European', (she went back to 'The Source' so to speak) kept referring to the Aryan race as 'the youngest' race on the planet in her book 'Lightning and the Sun'.
I took her comment as a random puzzle piece at the time.
I'm only partially familiar with the Vedic texts and their cycles but I do know enough to say they play a very important role in the history of our origins. It's difficult to expound any further until I have read more, but suspect there is something glaring out at whomever asks the right questions within those texts.
Post automatically merged:


This is the thing. Perhaps it has been the world of others for longer than we have been here. It puts Zecharia Sitchin/J. P. Farrell's ideas of interplanetary warfare in to some sort of context.
Post automatically merged:


Almost as if days (daze), seconds (as opposed to firsts) the minute (as opposed to the enormous) and decayed(s) were planted on us as a form of spell.
I had a watch back in the early 90's and when it broke I never replaced it. It felt as if Big Brother was watching me, always having to be somewhere or get somewhere, time is money etc. (though still at school). The relief when it broke was great- I felt free.
Seems to me as if time as we know it today is imperative to the materialistic commercial slave system we're currently trapped within.
Not just time, but finite and insufficient time. YOLO justifies all things. Sad.
 
OP
whitewave

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,334
In North America, the month of September 1752 was exceptionally short, skipping 11 days.

1544989284988.png
link

NASA, in its attempt to explain calendrical usage around the world, states that there are STILL 40 different calendars/counting systems in use today. Also, that there can be no truly,totally accurate calendar because of the variable time of the tropical year (the interval between vernal equinoxes). Astronomical cycles are not absolutely constant, and they are not known exactly. The Revised Julian (based on ancient Egyptian calculation methods with a little tweaking) has been proposed. Funny how the more advanced we become, the more we rely on ancient knowledge as being superior to our own.

The principal astronomical cycles are the day (based on the rotation of the Earth on its axis), the year (based on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun), and the month (based on the revolution of the Moon around the Earth). The complexity of calendars arises because these cycles of revolution do not comprise an integral number of days, and because astronomical cycles are neither constant nor perfectly commensurable with each other.

This sort of ambiguity in regards to measuring time affects so many things besides our stolen history. Astrological charts (if you believe in that sort of thing), archaeological dating of artifacts, anniversaries, birthdays, calculating how many years a particular regent ruled. The list affecting our reality is endless. Speaking of astrology, there were originally 13 zodiac signs, not just 12.

@dreamtime: You seem to have made an addition to your post #14 that I'm just now noticing. I found myself reading it like that keymaster dude in GhostBusters when he was talking about the history of Zuul. :) All kidding aside, it was good information. In preparing this article I spent a full day chasing down links online and reading til my eyeballs burned. I don't seem to be able to find the original source now for where it was stated (on a wiki page, probably) that the general consensus among scholars was that our timeline is off by thousands of years. Sorry about that. In retrospect, I should have included the source for that as well.

Some cultures date the time of a persons birth from the moment they pop out of the womb and others date it from the time of conception (roughly), counting a newborn infant as one year old at the moment it's born. We would have the same dilemma counting from the beginning of the world, even if we could somehow know that precise moment. Is it from when something popped out of nothingness or is the beginning when the earth finally cooled enough for stuff to grow on it?
 
Top