Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 9:06 PM
95 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (4 members, 91 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,562 Year: 3,599/19,786 Month: 594/1,087 Week: 184/212 Day: 26/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Why isn't the solstice New Years Day?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1996
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1 of 33 (714567)
12-23-2013 8:30 PM


Is there a reason that New Years Day is a week and a half after the Winter Solstice?

Happy Holidays!


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 12-23-2013 8:36 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2013 9:17 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 12-24-2013 8:54 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded
 Message 11 by ramoss, posted 12-24-2013 12:30 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 2 of 33 (714568)
12-23-2013 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
12-23-2013 8:30 PM


Nudge nudge ... snip snip
New Years day falls on the eighth day after Jesus birth; it was the date Jesus was actually considered a human and gained a name, became a Jew and suffered a small loss.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-23-2013 8:30 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 3 of 33 (714570)
12-23-2013 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
12-23-2013 8:30 PM


yeah

bad time keeping


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-23-2013 8:30 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 4 of 33 (714591)
12-24-2013 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
12-23-2013 8:30 PM


Why? Because.
Tanypteryx writes:

Is there a reason that New Years Day is a week and a half after the Winter Solstice?

As in, a logical evidenced reason? No.

Jesus' birthday was chosen to be on the winter solstice... to make it seem important (Dec. 25th at the time).
Then, later, it was realized that the solstice moved around because the calendar in use was not 365.25 days.

When they figured this out, they decided to put together another calendar.
At this time, they decided to keep Jesus' birthday on the same day (Dec. 25th). And make the New Year to be 8 days after.

8 days after birth is generally when a Jewish child is circumcised... as Jar posted about.
This is significant as well... to Jews. (Jesus bleeding = "proof" that Jesus was indeed a human).

So, the answer is: That's the way the guys in charge at the time decided to make it.
And we keep it because of tradition and pain-in-the-ass to change.

Some answers webpage I read that I found really annoying to click through

And Merry Christmas!!
I'm on my last day at work, hopefully y'all are already holiday-ing.

Edited by Stile, : Adding well-wishes to be polite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-23-2013 8:30 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 9:17 AM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 33 (714595)
12-24-2013 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stile
12-24-2013 8:54 AM


Re: Why? Because.
8 days after birth is generally when a Jewish child is circumcised... as Jar posted about.

Yeah, except that New Years Day is exactly seven days after Christmas which ruins the story unless there is some reason for pegging Jan 2 to being 8 days after Christmas. The story sound sounds like hokum anyway.

The calendar has been adjusted a few times because of the mismatch between 365.25 days and the actual length of a year which is more like 365.2422 days. Astronomy hobbyists know that in the calendar reform of 1582, ten whole days were skipped as part of the transistion betweeen the Julian and Gregorian calendar.

I believe the old Hebrew calendar was based on the moon, which is the reason why the date of Easter flies around the calendar so much.

Finally, anyone who is absolutely positive that Christ was born on the Winter Solistice as opposed to any other time of the year is probably someone you need to take a couple of steps away from. There is likely more than one thing wrong with them.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 12-24-2013 8:54 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 12-24-2013 9:41 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 7 by jar, posted 12-24-2013 9:44 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 6 of 33 (714598)
12-24-2013 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by NoNukes
12-24-2013 9:17 AM


Because: Reasons.
NoNukes writes:

Yeah, except that New Years Day is exactly seven days after Christmas which ruins the story unless there is some reason for pegging Jan 2 to being 8 days after Christmas. The story sound sounds like hokum anyway.

I agree, it's silly.
The "answer" I linked to actually mentioned that when they originally picked Jesus' birthday as the winter solstice it was on December "24/25" ... I don't really know what they mean by that. Something about how it moved around 'cause their calendar wasn't quite correct... But the 24th would work with the "8 days 'till New Year" thing.

I don't find any of the answers satisfying.

The calendar has been adjusted a few times because of the mismatch between 365.25 days and the actual length of a year which is more like 365.2422 days. Astronomy hobbyists know that in the calendar reform of 1582, ten whole days were skipped as part of the transistion betweeen the Julian and Gregorian calendar.

I think adjustments like this, and I'm sure there were many before they even started recording them... are behind the issue in some form.

As RAZD said... "bad time keeping."
It's as good an explanation as any I can find.

Finally, anyone who is absolutely positive that Christ was born on the Winter Solistice...

I even worry about those who are absolutely positive that Christ was born at all.

My wife read this book recently: Inside Scientology It's amazing to read about how a religion got started in the modern age. The parallels that can be drawn between this religion starting and how any religion could have started (like Christianity) are staggering.

Start a religion in an age where record-keeping just isn't done and you don't even have to clean up your "mundane history"... just write whatever one you'd like. It would have been so easy to start a religion at that time, I'm surprised it was done every day. Oh, wait... here's a list of over 9000.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 9:17 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 11:13 AM Stile has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 33 (714599)
12-24-2013 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by NoNukes
12-24-2013 9:17 AM


Re: Why? Because.
You count the 25th. So it is the eight day. "25,26,27,28,29,30,31,1"

The reason for this was of course infant mortality. Unless the child lived awhile the likelihood of dying remained very high. If it made it into the second week the odds of the child staying alive went up considerably.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 9:17 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 1:17 PM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 33 (714609)
12-24-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
12-24-2013 9:41 AM


Re: Because: Reasons.
I think adjustments like this, and I'm sure there were many before they even started recording them... are behind the issue in some form.

Don't calendar systems imply recording?

There is no particularly good reason to start the year on the Winter Solstice. Why not start the year on an equinox? Or on the date of Earth's perihelion, which is actually only about two days later than New Years Day?

And doggone it, the Winter Solistice is never any later than December 23, and even that occurs quite rarely. I suspect calendar tinkering may have something to do with the slippage to December 25th.

People may have used calendars starting at Winter Solstice, but the Julian and Gregorian calendars did not work that way.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 12-24-2013 9:41 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 12-24-2013 11:30 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 9 of 33 (714611)
12-24-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
12-24-2013 11:13 AM


Re: Because: Reasons.
NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

I think adjustments like this, and I'm sure there were many before they even started recording them... are behind the issue in some form.

Don't calendar systems imply recording?

Yes, they certainly do.
I didn't mean recording the date in general I meant recording changes to the calendar system they were using.

I'm sure some changes to the calendar were not recorded, as well as some records (even calendars in general) just plain being lost to our knowledge.

There is no particularly good reason to start the year on the Winter Solstice. Why not start the year on an equinox? Or on the date of Earth's perihelion, which is actually only about two days later than New Years Day?

I agree. Personally, I would have started the calendar on the day Earth's orbit stabalized enough to warrant having a standard calendar.
Unfortunately, I wasn't around when the calendar was created. Also, I don't know exactly when that was.
Perhaps those who created the calendar had similar technological limitations and just picked whatever made sense to them at the time (important religious implications).

People may have used calendars starting at Winter Solstice, but the Julian and Gregorian calendars did not work that way.

Yeah. They should have just googled it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 11:13 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-24-2013 11:42 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 10 of 33 (714613)
12-24-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stile
12-24-2013 11:30 AM


Re: Because: Reasons.
Remember, the idea of a universal time or even date is a fairly new concept. At the time these traditions were developed things like the day or times were determined locally and there were even different ways of celebrating holidays based on whether a city was walled or not.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 12-24-2013 11:30 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 11 of 33 (714618)
12-24-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
12-23-2013 8:30 PM


Two reasons.

1) It used to be they did not correct for the drift of days in the leap year.

2) The Roman Senate made the first day of the year the day they started to
meet after the solstice (i.e.. it's a political choice).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-23-2013 8:30 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 33 (714621)
12-24-2013 1:12 PM


I
In my brief search, I have not found any references that set Christmas up as being the day of winter solstice. As best as I can tell, somewhere in the 4th century the date was set to December 25th.

The date or a connection with the solstice is not derived from the Bible. Everyone seems so sure that the chosen date must be a solstice based date that has slipped with calendar inaccuracies, but I cannot find any references supporting anything like that.

People who care about the Julian calendar celebrate Christmas on Jan 6 of all dates.

Personally, I would have started the calendar on the day Earth's orbit stabalized enough to warrant having a standard calendar.

Which would have pretty much assured that your calendar would be useless today. A calendar should take into account the length of the year and the passage of days. If it does not do both, it isn't worthwhile. Back in the days of the early solar system the length of a day was surely something different than it is now. Surely the day was much shorter at a time right after we acquired our moon.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 33 (714622)
12-24-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
12-24-2013 9:44 AM


Re: Why? Because.
You count the 25th. So it is the eight day. "25,26,27,28,29,30,31,1"

That does accurately reflect the Jewish accounting. The scheme is circumcision on the 8th day of life, and not 8 days after birth which I believe was the originally stated counting.

If it made it into the second week the odds of the child staying alive went up considerably.

Yes, but getting barely into the second week could not have mattered all that much over say the seventh day. And I suspect that sawing away on the new born's johnson did not help much with the infant mortality rate.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 12-24-2013 9:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-24-2013 1:27 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 33 (714623)
12-24-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
12-24-2013 1:17 PM


Re: Why? Because.
Yes, but you can verify with Ramoss.

Yes, but getting barely into the second week could not have mattered all that much over say the seventh day. And I suspect that sawing away on the new born's johnson did not help much with the infant mortality rate.

I don't doubt you believe that but I've never seen any real evidence to support that concept. However it did make lots of sense from an identity position that would far outweigh any increase in infant mortality.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2013 1:17 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ramoss, posted 12-24-2013 2:29 PM jar has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 15 of 33 (714628)
12-24-2013 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
12-24-2013 1:27 PM


Re: Why? Because.
The laws about infant , and infant mortality is this.

If a child is older than 30 days, all the laws about mourning apply.

If the child is younger than 30 days, and it is certain that the child is 'full term' (or at least 7 to 9 months after conception), then if the child has taken even one breath, the laws of mourning apply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-24-2013 1:27 PM jar has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019