Some further thoughts. Again, as the subject line states, WILDLY OFF-TOPIC!
Read on at your own risk!

----------
> From: Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Wildly off-topic: the end-of-world occurs this Sunday!
> Date: Friday, October 24, 1997 9:38 PM
>
> Because of a private message in which Cecile Chi wrote,
>
> > The New York Times said it would be Thursday, October 23rd, at noon.
> > They didn't say noon where.
>
> I searched the New York Times for the piece -- which turns out to be by
> Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard. Gould is extremely well known among
> evolutionary biologists and readers of the American Museum of Natural
> History's "Natural History" magazine.
>
> Gould does come up with a slightly different date for the end of the
world
> (several days ago, actually), simply because he used Ussher's date rather
> than Lightfoot's "corrected" date.
>
> In the spirit that because the end is near and nobody is going to much
care
> about enforcing copyright laws anyway after Sunday, I've reproduced
Gould's
> opinion piece in its entirety below. At least he quoted the same passage
from
> 2 Peter that I did.
>
> Wirt Atmar
>
> ====================================
>
> Opinion: Today Is the Day
>
>  By STEPHEN JAY GOULD
>
>
>   I do apologize for intruding upon a perfectly pleasant morning with the
> potentially unwelcome news that the world will end today -- precisely at
> noon. I base these tidings on the most famous and widely accepted
chronology
> built by a method that the greatest Western scholars once viewed as
beyond
> reproach.
>
>   In this standard scheme, widely accepted from the days of the early
Church
> Fathers (for example, Lactantius in the fourth century) to the beginnings
of
> modern geology in the 18th century, the earth would endure for exactly
6,000
> years -- since God had fashioned his entire creation in a mere six days,
and
> several biblical passages proclaimed that "one day is with the Lord as a
> thousand years" (II Peter 3:8). The completion of these 6,000 years would
> evoke Armageddon, followed by the true Millennium -- the thousand-year
reign
> of Jesus on earth, initiated by his Second Coming and corresponding with
> God's seventh day of rest (Revelation 20).
>
>   Thus, if one could determine the date of creation, one could know the
> moment of apocalypse with certainty -- exactly 6,000 years after the
> beginning of the world. The chronological craze that swept European
> scholarship during the 17th century emanated from this millenarian
theory, as
> a rash of religious wars convinced many pundits that the end of days must
be
> nigh. By accepting the Bible's literal truth, and then counting the time
of
> creation, the ages of the patriarchs and the reigns of the kings (and
also
> using the chronologies of other peoples to fill in the missing centuries
of
> the biblical narrative), these scholars tried to locate the moment of
> creation.
>
>   The most popular version, devised by Archbishop James Ussher in 1650
and
> widely propagated by inclusion in nearly all subsequent editions of the
King
> James Bible, set the moment of creation at Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. --
precisely at
> noon.

It is not possible to arrive at the day, month, or even the exact year (let
alone the time) based on data in the Bible.


>   Ussher calculated this moment at exactly 4,000 years before the birth
of
> Jesus. But the sixth-century inventor of the B.C.-A.D. time system, a
monk
> named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Short), had made a little error in
> determining the birth of Jesus. Copious evidence placed the death of
Herod in
> 4 B.C. at the latest. So if the lives of Jesus and Herod overlapped (as
any
> biblical literalist must accept given such stories as the return of the
Magi
> to their own country and of Herod's subsequent slaughter of the
innocents),
> then Jesus was born in 4 B.C. (however oxymoronic the statement), if not
> earlier. The date of creation therefore slides back by four years, to
4004
> B.C.

As we've seen with the various discussions of calendars on this list, they
are a creation of man and are therefore subject to errors. The birth of
Jesus in 4-6 B.C. is accepted by most modern scholars.


>   One might think that the allotted 6,000 years should have ended on Oct.
23,
> 1996, with no event of greater note than the Yankees' miraculous victory
> (not, alas, to be repeated this season) in Game 4 of the World Series.
But
> Little Dennis also made another error -- not really his fault this time,
> since Western arithmetic had not yet developed the concept of zero. He
began
> modern time on January 1, year one -- not January 1, year zero.
Therefore,
> Ussher's 6,000 years will end today -- at noon on Oct. 23, 1997.
>
>   Oh, I know that the corps of carpers and whiners will be active as
usual.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, so anyone who might disagree with Mr. Gould is now a "carper and
whiner."

> Yes, I know that Ussher was using the old Julian calendar, and that he
chose
> Oct. 23 as the autumnal equinox for that distant date on his erroneous
> scorecard -- so maybe the end really came last month on the Gregorian
date of
> the equinox. And yes, I know that the earth is really 4.5 billion years
old.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How does he know this? Was he there?

> (As a paleontologist, I even get paid for such tidbits.)

Of course, he fails to mention the many thousands of scientists (including
paleontologists) who don't believe this date.

<snip>


>   I would rather stake my faith on the one empirical constancy in the
history
> of this entire enterprise: apocalyptic predictions always fail! Thus, if
I

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here is where Mr. Gould is entirely wrong. An apocalypse was predicted and
DID happen. God destroyed the earth once with a flood. He provided a one
hundred year warning to the people that were living then, while the Ark was
being constructed. All land dwelling life was destroyed, except those that
were in the Ark.

> land upright in Japan, I will know that the anticipated apocalypse has
been
> postponed once again. The only true pattern of the ages -- the failure of
> apocalyptic predictions -- will have repeated one more time to suffuse
our
> spirits with the satisfaction of a knowable world order. God must be in
his
> heaven -- and all must be right with the world.

God is in heaven...but I doubt there are many who would agree that "all
must be right with the world." The world will end one day, but Jesus was
clear that no one except God knows that day. Many dates of the end have
come and gone. Most who "predict" or "suggest" dates clearly state it's
their best estimate based on their research or reasons, not a guaranteed
event.


>   Stephen Jay Gould is a professor of paleontology at Harvard University
and
> the author, most recently, of ``Questioning the Millennium.''
>
> Copyright 1997 The New York Times
>
> ====================================


Lou Cook
"These thoughts and opinions are my own"