Sir Isaac Newton, Britain's greatest scientist, predicted the date of the end of the world - and it is only 57 years away.
His theories about Armageddon have been unearthed by academics from little-known handwritten manuscripts in a library in Jerusalem.
The thousands of pages show Newton's attempts to decode the Bible, which he believed contained God's secret laws for the universe.
Newton, who was also a theologian and alchemist, predicted that the Second Coming of Christ would follow plagues and war and would precede a 1,000-year reign by the saints on earth - of which he would be one.
However, this does not mean that Newton WAS an historicist, which, just like dispensationalism, is left wanting.
It seems you agree with what Newton wrote, as follows:
"God gave the prophecies, not to gratify men's curiosity by enabling them to fore know things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and His own providence, not the interpreters, be thereby manifested to the world." Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727)
May I suggest that these false doctrinal statement on eschatology is destructive heresy.
Why is that?
I would like to know from you if Christ and scripture speak proleptically?
Just to make it certain, Newton did not hold to one particular view of eschatology. He more held to at least two separate interpretations of Daniel 9 and how it concerns the coming of our LORD Jesus. We must too understand that Newton held to a fulfilled view of Daniel 9 through his math, although he wrote of the unfulfilled interpretation he held the fulfilled view, which is THE accurate interpretation and exposition.
This is what Newton wrote concerning this prophecy that was given to Daniel by the angel:
"Thus have we in this short Prophecy, a prediction of all the main periods relating to the coming of the Messiah; the time of his birth, that of his death, that of the rejection of the Jews, the duration of the Jewish war whereby he caused the city and sanctuary to be destroyed, and the time of his second coming: and so the interpretation here given is more full and complete and adequate to the design, than if we should restrain it to his first coming only, as Interpreters usually do. We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Danielâ€™s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation. In our way the years are Jewish Luni-solar years, ought to be; and the seventy weeks of years are Jewish weeks ending with sabbatical years, which is very remarkable. For they end either with the year of the birth of Christ, two years before the vulgar account, or with the year of his death, or with the seventh year after it: all which are sabbatical years. Others either count by Lunar years, or by weeks not Judaic: and, which is worst, they ground their interpretations on erroneous Chronology, excepting the opinion of Funccius about the seventy weeks, which is the same with ours. For they place Ezra and Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, and the building of the Temple in the reign of Darius Nothus, and date the weeks of Daniel from those two reigns." Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, Chapter 10 Of the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
I would like to encourage anyone who is interested in Daniel 9:24-27 to take a look at a book by a very dear brother, Dr. Kelly Birks. It is called, "The Comings of Christ" and one may order it from www.1stbooks.com .
The preterist very of eschatology is THE ESCHATOLOGY of the entire Bible.
"God gave the prophecies, not to gratify men's curiosity by enabling them to fore know things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and His own providence, not the interpreters, be thereby manifested to the world."
Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727)
I can and do concede to the fact that Newton "played a role in the historicist interpretation" of eschatology. However, this does not mean that Newton WAS an historicist, which, just like dispensationalism, is left wanting. If anyone would like to discuss this further, please feel free and welcome to write me an email at email@example.com
I have always respected Newtons work as breaking new ground in Physics and was well aware of his Christianity, but when I saw the heading I put him into the Heretics catagory. I'm glad I read the article, because it shows he was very hesitant to guess a date and even Jesus said that no one knows the time except the Father. It restored my esteem in this great thinker, although these comments and his waste of time searching for the answer has thrown some doubt on his sanity. It just shows, we all have our weaknesses.
One of Sir Isaac Newtonâ€™s Commentaries, â€śOBSERVATIONS ON DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHNâ€ť is located online for free, Rev C. H. Roberts gave the web address above. It was published after Newtonâ€™s death in 1733.
Sure sounds like he was pre-millenial from the info in the article. He certainly probably had Historicist views also--common for when he lived. But, I don't know why any one would want to claim him theologically-he was an Arian, based upon several biographies used for a 15 page research paper I wrote for a college math class.