Bug fix request
In the last week or so, the BC dates are showing a discrepancy of one year.
You can enter a date in a source, and it then shows up in the details 1 year less.
Comments
-
I looked up the example and the date shows as a negative number rather than a BC date. That being said it is correct because the negative number will be be one year off from the BC date. However this can be confusing, so I have reported this to the engineers. Thank you for sharing.
0 -
Layman's attempt at explanation:
I think there might be two possibilities to consider: ...year 0 was not a year but an event/day - so in order to keep the years straight on both sides - the shift is needed? If time marches on ... End of the first year - Year 4000 - is marked when reaching beginning of year -3999?
Or
... perhaps year 0 is being counted as a year - thus the event (the coming of our Lord) occurs at the end of year 0 (the count down to zero hour event) - thus if you count year 0 year 4000 is actually -3999?
I'm sure there's some sense/explanation in there somewhere...
Merry Christmas 2022!
#HisLightStillShinesintheDarkness, #LightTheWorld
1 -
Here is a good explanation of the various ways years are designated: https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/astronomical_year_numbering.htm
So the bug is not in the year since it is correct. The "bug" is that the source date in the source title line is displaying the date using the astronomical dating system, which simplifies the math, without specifying that it is using that system rather than the traditional Christian dating system which does not use negative numbers and which does not have a year 0.
Did the date previously include BC in the display? Is that the change you actually are seeing?
3 -
Gordon That interesting I will have to remember that about the number of the years, Thanks for the info. 😎 I hope they get your Bug issue smashed up, with all hate them. good luck I hope the best. 🙏
0
