What Davidson and Aldersmith found was that no matter what type of year used lunar, solar, or prophetic (360 day), there was no reasonable way the Herodians could have used the decree of Cyrus to claim that Herod was the messiah of Daniel 9. It wasn’t until the early 1900s that Davidson and Aldersmith 1 further illuminated Newton’s insights into a workable theory that could be proven with some clever chronological forensics. Though Newton’s intuition was amazingly prescient, he provided no mechanism by which he could show how the Jewish people might have used Cyrus’ decree as a means to shorten the Persian period.
Sir isaac newton ii pdf#
Thus by some unexplained means Newton surmised the Jewish rabbis had shortened the chronology of Persia.Ĭlick on Image to Enlarge or for a high resolution PDF click here: PDF When the Messianic kingdom (under Herod) failed to materialize, the Jewish Messianic expectants applied the prophecy to Theudas, then Judas of Galilee, and finally Barchochab. What’s implied by Newton’s statement, however, is that he believed the Jewish Messianic expectants used the decree of Cyrus (which allowed the Jewish people to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem) as a basis to claim that Herod was a fulfillment of the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9. Unfortunately, Newton didn’t provide any direct evidence to explain why it “seems” to him that the Persian era had been shortened by the Jewish Messianic expectants. So what did Newton mean when he stated that Messianic expectancy based in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 “seem” to have shortened the “Reign of the Kingdom of Persia”? Part IV: Sir Isaac Newton, Daniel 9, & the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis Part III: The Masoretic Text, Matthew 1, & the Jubilee Part II: Matthew 1, the Masoretic Text, & the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism Part I: The Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, & Matthew 1
The following links will take you to the previous articles in this series. This article is Part III in my exploration of Rabbinic forgery hypothesis.
As you’ll see this error has profound implications for the vast majority of today’s eschatological world views. Surprisingly, this error has been borrowed by most of today’s Christian eschatological scholars in a well-meaning effort to prove that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah prophesied by the 70 Sevens prophecy of Daniel 9. But more importantly this statement provides us a rare insight into the incredible influence Daniel 9 and the Seventy Weeks prophecy has had on Messianic expectancy and Bible chronology of the past and why its unique influence has continued to this very day.Īdding further intrigue to Newton’s statement above is the little known fact that it exposes the root of a chronological error that many of the Jewish messianic expectants of the 1st centuries BC/AD embedded into their interpretation of Daniel 9. In this article I hope to also show you why this often ignored statement is a key to understanding the chronology of the Persian era as it relates to the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis. ” Those Jews who took Herod for the Messiah, and were thence called Herodians, seem to have grounded their opinion upon the seventy weeks of years, which they found between the Reign of Cyrus and that of Herod: but afterwards, in applying the Prophesy to Theudas, and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Barchochab, they seem to have shortened the Reign of the Kingdom of Persia.” (page 357, Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended) Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy then he did science? While he contributed greatly to science, I would argue that one of his greatest contributions to the field of Biblical history and Bible prophecy was his following observation:
0 kommentar(er)
