It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 16
16
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:39 AM
The bible says...

I will never understand why anyone continues reading after this line; in a discussion of theology, philosophy and religion as a concept this is okay. As soon as someone starts using the bible in a discussion that involves science and math and requires more than blindly talking out of one's backside the entire thread should be ignored.

On the topic at hand: the measurements we have placed on our world are meaningless regardless of whom they come from. OP seeks to convince us that 2012 is the end time by stating that the bible says the year 2000 is the end time and fudging the numbers to say that we're counting fast. In other words:

2012 = 2000 = 5775 = 12.19.191.0.2.'ahaw.8.muwan.G2 (google search for mayan calender conversion, don't ask me to explain any of that, because I cant)

None of the numbers are "right" or any more correct than the last in any sense of it all. They measure from when someone started counting and that's about it. 2012 will come and go and someone will be back next year with the next Doom Date.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:09 AM

None of the numbers are "right" or any more correct than the last in any sense of it all.
But still we are living in the year 2000(2012),the idea is that people expect something to happen,and they deserve to know the truth!

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by diamondsmith

None of the numbers are "right" or any more correct than the last in any sense of it all.
But still we are living in the year 2000(2012),the idea is that people expect something to happen,and they deserve to know the truth!

You missed the point.

We are living in the year 2000, and the year 1999, and the year 1236... etc.

Where you started counting, where your source started counting is meaningless and your reference, the bible, is specious as a source of anything.

The REAL truth is that we're living (approximately) in the year 4.5Billion for the age of the earth, and the year (approximately) 14000. (for around when agriculture began to rise as far as we know) Those are the important count starts; not some arbitrary birth of some kid who may or may not have had magical powers.
edit on 1/18/2012 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:59 AM

The REAL truth is that we're living (approximately) in the year 4.5Billion for the age of the earth
I think we must see the things related to our history for about two thousands years now,and the perspective of our lives that we are living in the present.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:03 PM

If I understand that sentence, then my only reply can be: things change often enough that we should start over counting far more often.

The reality remains, you either start counting at the beginning of Earth's existence or the existence of human civilization; not part way through.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:18 PM
As about the those verses without one statement there will be no presence in the book of the...

edit on 18-1-2012 by diamondsmith because: change

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:18 PM

The reality remains, you either start counting at the beginning of Earth's existence or the existence of human civilization; not part way through.
That depend from the point of view of one and his believes.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:36 PM

Not really, it's common sense: we're either as old as civilization or the measurement is wrong.

Civilization didn't start 2000 years ago or 2012 years ago, we're not 2000 years old, we're much older. We don't measure our own lives as being XXpost-pubescent years, we measure from our birth.

I'm not 3 feet tall AH (above hips); I'm 6 feet tall. You measure from the beginning if you want the right number. If you think that is a matter of opinion, then I'm sorry to say this is one of those rare instances where an opinion can be wrong.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM

Civilization didn't start 2000 years ago
Not civilization but other thing start 2000 years ago.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:51 PM

In other words you are choosing an arbitrary point in time as the start of your count; therefore it is wrong.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
We are living in the year 2012. Not one thing has been presented to suggest otherwise.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:58 PM
This is probably the funniest thread ive ever read! So if its really 2000 does that mean im 12 years younger too? Nice

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:53 PM

Not one thing has been presented to suggest otherwise.
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:59 PM
guys not only do we have leap year but we have Daylight Savings too!

Round 2... FIGHT!

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM

Hello Diamondsmith. Still working on the Harmonic Tree, I see. So am I. Music to my ears, my friend. Thanks!

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:12 PM

Music to my ears, my friend
Any time my friend,you are welcome,this music you know...is not made for all the ears ,but when all the ears will try to hear, the music will stop,and they will pray to hear the music again.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:57 PM

The path is narrow. So while I'm here, I am trying to feel out what it was that happened 2000 years ago, that was so significant, that it was established as year 0. I'm inclined to say, that is has to do with the Christ Energy and a major shift/correction in the timeline(?). Either to accelerate, or to slow down the process of our part in the Harmonic Tree. While I also have the feeling that the year 12 might also be involved in the calculation.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:10 PM
Very well; Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Well, have they?

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:45 PM
So far no evidence at all to substantiate the idea that the year is not 2012. There have been stories that such evidence would be revealed but nothing has. The OP provides a misconception that years are counts of days. Not so.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:48 PM
I believe if ATS had an award to "The most stupid thread ever" this one would win by a long shot.

new topics

top topics

16