2012? False.We are actually living in the year 2000

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
And here i am the fool perpetuating this insanity by replying to this joke of a thread. My advice to my fellow posters is to ignore this thread and all future threads by the OP. This will be my last post on here so dont bother to reply OP i dont want this bumped anymore than it already is.

edit on 10-1-2012 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)

I have to agree with you on this. I am going to stick around, though, to see if OP actually posts proof, however I seriously doubt they will.

I come back and see we went from 6 to 12, why are we feeding the trolls. No amount of what we say, is going to change the trolls mind, or cough up proof. Might as well just leave this alone and go elsewhere, the troll and the one person that believes in the troll can continue in peace.

reply to post by diamondsmith


I can see where you can account for the loss of time, however you didn't completely research the leap year, the leap year is used every 4 years to compensate for time lost, but there would still be a slight smidgen of time left approximately .007...... of a day or like 11 minutes which then could hypothetically add up supporting your claim but unfortunately for your credibility , there was a second measure taken specifically to counter act this 11 minutes (which wouldn't add up to 12 years anyways but thats not even relevant now), every 400 years three leap years are ommitted, the rule is a century year isn't a leap year unless it is divisible by 400 into a complete integer. i.e. 400,800,1200,1600,2000, and so forth.

(heres the link I got my info from though it should be available many places Leap Year Infoplease)

I'm usually a lurker here but I just had to add that the OP sounds very reminiscent of Jared Loughner's posts. Both used very odd phases and both used logic that no one else on ATS could understand. Both used these to conclude we are all wrong and the OP is somehow bolstered. I'm not saying the OP is JL but both seem to have a lot in common. Take that for what you will when trying to argue your points.

I'm tired or reading as fast as I can only to find two more additional pages have popped up in the meanwhile. The whole thing of the suggestion will not come or go is .......I don't have a word, but it would be a negative in meaning. There seems to be a mish-mash or Julian and Gregorian, zero point, or Big bang million/billions of years. For the sake of this argument, it appears we are using the Birth of Christ as the zero point, thus it's 2012 in our time, You claim a ruler of old wanted to have the calender fall on a certain date, and changed everything to suit their agenda. Then you say it's in the Bible, the scripture backing up that 2000 will not come or go.

It is NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE, that is contrary to scripture and the words of Jesus Christ. The Time of Creation and the consecutive generations are well documented and cross checkable down to the Year ZERO or Christs birth and our current calender. The proposition that 2000 would not come or go, as though the Armageddon initiation time frame was based on the year two thousand is moot, there was no such declaration in Biblical terms. The notion that people were too simple or inept to keep an accurate calender since the Birth of Christ bears no merit, and is simply fabrication. So your only hope of making your argument as to the timing of the year '2000' can not rest on Biblical teachings, so just admit it. It's moot anyway, the Armageddon would have no meaning for atheists or non Christians anyway, other than an event in time, of unknown dates, that by rights, shouldn't even be in their vocabulary as atheists. It was stated by Christ in the Bible, that no man would know the time or the hour, not even the angles in Heaven, only the Father (GOD) Perhaps you post is in the direction of Biblical teachings, or it is not, but to draw conclusions from it, obviously includes it. This whole thread will go nowhere. .......later.

reply to post by diamondsmith

The only thing OP has done, as I see it, is to divide 12 years of HIS gap between 2012 and 2000, by 2000 years and thus ending up with 2.19 days each year. That's really a "wise" way to set things to your hand......
He totally lost direction caused by using the wrong parameters.... supposedly from tre bible in this case....
Have fun !!

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by woogleuk

 

What does it matter?

Hard to explain to you...very hard,believe me.But in the Bible is written very clear,
" year 2000 not will come nor will pass"

So you somehow you did mental gymnastics in order to come up with the year 2000 not coming or passing. SO the end comes??

"But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only...."Matthew 24:36

SOO either you are GOD the Father OR you are a troll.

reply to post by diamondsmith


This does have everything to do with astronomy. That is something you need to learn.

Is counting still a problem here? Seems to be.

One of the first things that is needed is to understand what to count. It's trips around the Sun that need to be counted, not days. Everyone should know that the problem is how to assign days to years since the trip around the Sun is not exactly a whole number of days. It's that close to 1/4 problem.

Count trips around the Sun. My kids learned about that in preschool. For birthday parties they would carry a globe around a Sun and for each completed loop the whole class counted until the age was reached.

reply to post by diamondsmith


It does not matter what year we are in. Everyone has their own calendar.

By the way, if we would lose 2 days a year for thousands of years, summer solstice (mid June) every 180 years (roughly) would be cold as hell and I would do snowboarding

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by woogleuk

 

What does it matter?

Hard to explain to you...very hard,believe me.But in the Bible is written very clear,
" year 2000 not will come nor will pass"

well, if 2000 can not come, and will not pass, then how can it 2000 now? So its 1999? Has the last 13 years been a tim vortex? I knew Bush being pres was a little fishy.

OP, I'm still waiting for your so-called "proof".
2nd.

good morning all,

when i 1st visited this site a while back i was intrigued by a lot of the subjects and the discussions that ensued .
many threads were/are to me exciting and well put together and i loved all the point and counterpoints .
now i have learned a new reason to visit this site the very moment i rise .
it helps set my mood for the whole day. my laughter now greets me every morning .
this is due from some of the threads i see as headlines. case in point , this thread. this thread has me laughing soooo hard. to think any man can not grasp the simple logic that a solar year is just that has brought me very much joy this morning. i got to ask what will greet me tomorrow ?
BREAKING NEWS the earth is flat !
ALERT sun orbits the earth !
MUST SEE ! the birds fly !

ANYway you look at it, we can track the stars to confirm the exact time it takes to complete 1 cycle around our star.
we have many calendars in STONE all around the globe to attest to that fact ! how can we dismiss such empirical data ?
examples;

Stonehenge
Nabta Playa
aztec pyramids

really it is the year 2000? ahh hahahahahahahahahaha ty ,

it's clear to me now, something is going to happen 2012

reply to post by diamondsmith


OK, I'll buy it....But, just say I'm 38 subtracting 12 years that makes me 26. And if I happen to date a 26 year old minus 12 years that would make her 14.......should I register on the Megan's Law in the US?

reply to post by woogleuk


maybe this is just the start mate
and it may get worse

The year is 2012. There is nothing in this thread that shows otherwise.

When it comes to correlations with other calendars the correlations are not affected by starting points since the correlation connects current dates.