4 ms·

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 cla

by 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

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.