>>This is new to me. I never thought about it. So, how did the years about 2000 years ago? 2 B.C., 1 B.C., then what? You are saying 1 A.D. would be next. Is this correct?
>>
>
>Yep. But there were no year denominations. When the society's decided to denote years they started with 1. If you think about, it would be impossible for anyone other than a psychic to know if the year was 1 BC, BC, etc. So the first 100th year was the year 100, not 99. Unfortunately, Y2K issues have been incorrectly linked with the new millenium and century.

Well, starting with 1 doesn't make sense, according to what I understand B.C. and A.D. to mean. I understood xxxx B.C. to mean the xxxx years before Christ died (or, more correctly, is going to die). I understood xxxx A.D. to mean the xxxx years after Christ died. Which would mean
0 B.C. = 0 A.D.
which is the date that Christ actually died.

So, maybe we are just correcting a mistake that society made when they came up with this "start at 1" idea. Hey zero might or might not be a number, but I know for a fact that 0.5 is a number; and I know that 0.5 comes before 1.

I have heard people argue that the new millenium actually comes a year past when we are all celebrating. But I figured they just weren't invited to the party and were a little bitter.

Joe