3 ms·

That was a fascinating read, but without links to the original I have to remain a little bit skeptical. I tried to access the documents in your second link hopi

by jakeva 6y ago

That was a fascinating read, but without links to the original I have to remain a little bit skeptical. I tried to access the documents in your second link hoping I could search for myself, but it looks like I'm locked out.

acqq 6y ago
The claim is that Newton figured out the dates from the Book of Daniel. The book of his about his conclusions was published in 1733 (he died in 1727) and is available in different formats: Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Observations-Upon-Prophecies-Daniel-Apocalypse/dp/1603864024 https://www.amazon.com/Observations-Upon-Prophecies-Daniel-A... 1733 original: https://archive.org/details/observationsupon1733newt https://archive.org/details/observationsupon1733newt Some PDF version: http://www.historicism.com/Newton/newton.pdf http://www.historicism.com/Newton/newton.pdf One author (Matania Z. Kochavi) writes that it can be seen that Newton wrote that believing he was personally chosen to understand the hidden code in the Bible, and when and how there will be the Second Coming of Christ, and "end of times" based on such logic like "flowing water represented a friendly encounter, whereas a flood symbolized war; similarly, a single boat sailing at sea was an image of friendship, whereas a flotilla represented a battle." or "three sets of symbols" "appeared in various places throughout the text. One set was composed of metals: gold, silver, copper, and iron. The second set used symbols from the animal kingdom: the lion, bear, leopard, and the "Fourth Beast." The third set made use of the ram and the goat."
- jakeva 6y ago
  Thanks for some sources. I spent a lot of time looking through them but was unable to find evidence Newton predicted the events the person I’m responding to claims he did.
  - acqq 6y ago
    That's typical for the whole industry of the texts and books of the authors who sell their stuff by writing about the "old prophecies." I also expect that the said claims aren't what Newton wrote, but are the new "interpretation" of what Newton's "interpretation" was. In modern form, these kind of "interpretations" have also typically much less rigor than what e.g. Newton did regarding the texts on which they are based -- it could be that the author intentionally doesn't even want to say what the actual sentences on which he bases his claims are. That's why I also cited the part of Newton's logic on which he bases everything, as a hint to those who are aware of the following to not spend to much time on the newest claims: we know today that there the assumptions of Newton were on very shaky grounds, with him believing that he has in front of him something that he can directly "decrypt" like a secret messaging code (some of which, used in his times, he was surely aware of): the whole development of historical analysis of Bible texts as the branch of bible studies happened also only after Newton, and today we know: first, that the texts can't be considered as something directly produced by God, but that they are the texts obviously produced by the humans of these times, and second: that they were also in some ways changed through the time, relatively randomly, being translated, transcribed, some variants lost etc. So we know that whatever Newton believed to be a secret code couldn't have been perfectly transported to Newton in England many centuries later, because we know today how that path looks like -- almost like an evolution tree of some biological subject. And then, even if that what was to Newton important had been actually preserved, we know that the time in which Newton lived wasn't special in the way he believed it was in his starting assumptions (regarding the "end of times", of course). So if some new author claims too much about what "Newton wrote" and "predicted" without the whole context... it's at least more suspicious than the author wants us to believe.

by jakeva 6y ago

acqq 6y ago

The claim is that Newton figured out the dates from the Book of Daniel. The book of his about his conclusions was published in 1733 (he died in 1727) and is available in different formats: Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Observations-Upon-Prophecies-Daniel-Apocalypse/dp/1603864024 https://www.amazon.com/Observations-Upon-Prophecies-Daniel-A... 1733 original: https://archive.org/details/observationsupon1733newt https://archive.org/details/observationsupon1733newt Some PDF version: http://www.historicism.com/Newton/newton.pdf http://www.historicism.com/Newton/newton.pdf One author (Matania Z. Kochavi) writes that it can be seen that Newton wrote that believing he was personally chosen to understand the hidden code in the Bible, and when and how there will be the Second Coming of Christ, and "end of times" based on such logic like "flowing water represented a friendly encounter, whereas a flood symbolized war; similarly, a single boat sailing at sea was an image of friendship, whereas a flotilla represented a battle." or "three sets of symbols" "appeared in various places throughout the text. One set was composed of metals: gold, silver, copper, and iron. The second set used symbols from the animal kingdom: the lion, bear, leopard, and the "Fourth Beast." The third set made use of the ram and the goat."

jakeva 6y ago
Thanks for some sources. I spent a lot of time looking through them but was unable to find evidence Newton predicted the events the person I’m responding to claims he did.
- acqq 6y ago
  That's typical for the whole industry of the texts and books of the authors who sell their stuff by writing about the "old prophecies." I also expect that the said claims aren't what Newton wrote, but are the new "interpretation" of what Newton's "interpretation" was. In modern form, these kind of "interpretations" have also typically much less rigor than what e.g. Newton did regarding the texts on which they are based -- it could be that the author intentionally doesn't even want to say what the actual sentences on which he bases his claims are. That's why I also cited the part of Newton's logic on which he bases everything, as a hint to those who are aware of the following to not spend to much time on the newest claims: we know today that there the assumptions of Newton were on very shaky grounds, with him believing that he has in front of him something that he can directly "decrypt" like a secret messaging code (some of which, used in his times, he was surely aware of): the whole development of historical analysis of Bible texts as the branch of bible studies happened also only after Newton, and today we know: first, that the texts can't be considered as something directly produced by God, but that they are the texts obviously produced by the humans of these times, and second: that they were also in some ways changed through the time, relatively randomly, being translated, transcribed, some variants lost etc. So we know that whatever Newton believed to be a secret code couldn't have been perfectly transported to Newton in England many centuries later, because we know today how that path looks like -- almost like an evolution tree of some biological subject. And then, even if that what was to Newton important had been actually preserved, we know that the time in which Newton lived wasn't special in the way he believed it was in his starting assumptions (regarding the "end of times", of course). So if some new author claims too much about what "Newton wrote" and "predicted" without the whole context... it's at least more suspicious than the author wants us to believe.