Newton, the Biblist
[Today's post is by Larry Pierce, co-editor of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, published by Master Books.]
Newton was a biblist. By that, I mean he started with the Bible and used it as his framework to understand ancient history of secular nations. Today, archaeologists are notorious evidentualists. I have yet to meet one who does not start outside the Bible with secular theories and tries to make the Bible fit.
Dr. Edwin Thiele was a good case in point. He uncritically accepted the exaggerated age of the Assyrian empire and force-fitted the Bible to make it agree. All the while he was professing great love and respect for the Hebrew scriptures. Beware the Judas kiss!
Newton was too clever to be so easily duped as Thiele. Newton assumed the biblical history to be correct. When you throw a rock into a pond you get ripples. Newton looked for the ripples in other nations that were triggered by events in biblical history. The Canannites did not sit idle waiting to be slaughtered by Joshua, but many fled to other countries. Their flight into other nations was noted by various secular writers.
When David defeated the Edomites, their mass exodus into Egypt, Greece and Philistia had a major impact on those countries that was well-documented. Their sophisticated knowledge of science and technology radically transformed the countries to which they fled. Solomon’s excellent relationships with Egypt and Hiram of Tyre were not accidents. The worldwide conquests of Sesostris had a definite impact on Judah and Rehoboam, in particular. The defeat of Zerah and his huge army by Asa destablished Egypt and Ethiopia for many years. And the list goes on and on.
Only after the publication of The Genesis Flood when many creationists abandoned the secular chronology of long ages which was the basis for evolution, was any progress made in the creation movement. Likewise, until creationists abandon the lies of Manetho and other ancient writers and go back to the first principles, as Newton did, will we have any credible alternative to the historical fairy tales that are propagated today. You cannot use the devil’s data to build a biblical worldview!
Filed under: Author Article | 1 Comment
Tags: Assyrian empire, canannites, edomites, Edwin Thiele, hiram, isaac newton, Manetho
Letter to the Editor
[Today's post is by Larry Pierce, co-editor of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, published by Master Books.]
Concerning the articles, The Hittites – Second Time Around and How Convincing are the Arguments for a New Egyptian Chronology, (Journal of Creation, volume 22 (1) 2009) – it is disappointing to see author continue to repeat mistakes that have been noted in the past. In particular, the reference to the Shalmanaser Pillar stating it depicts Jehu bringing tribute to the Assyrian king.
This author handled this misrepresentation in a letter to the editor to the Technical Journal in 2002 or 2003. Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones treated this fiction at length in his book, The Chronology of the Old Testament. If this is the only way to date this rock, then it is safe to say the experts do not have a clue when it was originally chiseled. Also, the Assyrian dates in both articles are based on the book, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, produced by Dr. Edwin R. Thiele.
Thiele commits the cardinal error done by so many Christians of using secular data to reinterpret the Bible rather than unconditionally accepting biblical history and using it to correct the gross errors in ancient secular history. Sir Isaac Newton, in his book, Revised History of the Ancient Kingdoms, shows from the Bible that there was no Assyrian empire before the days of Pul, around 790 B.C. (The revision of Newton’s book was released earlier this year, but the original has been around for almost 300 years under the title of The Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms Amended and the original text is readily available on the Internet with a simple Google search.) Assyrian history before that time was pure fiction. Like other ancient nations, they blatantly lied about their antiquity. If Christian historians and archeologists were better-read, maybe their published works would be more factual.
Both articles depend heavily on not only the defective Assyrian chronology, but also the highly fictionalized history of Manetho for Egyptian history. It is about time we abandoned the entire secular history of Egypt based on the lies recorded by Manetho. Newton, in correcting the Egyptian history, says this:
517. If the history of Herodotus of the earlier times is less accurate, it is because the archives of Egypt suffered much during the reigns of the Ethiopians and Assyrians. It is not likely that the priests of Egypt, who lived two or three hundred years after the days of Herodotus, could correct this. On the contrary, after Cambyses had carried away the records of Egypt, the priests were daily feigning new kings, to make their gods and nation look more ancient. This is obvious by comparing Herodotus with Diodorus and both of them with what Plato relates from the poem of Solon. This poem makes the wars of the great gods of Egypt agains the Greeks, to have been in the days of Cecrops I, Erechteus and Erichthonius and a little before those of Theseus. These gods at that time instituted temples and sacred rites to themselves. (E264) Therefore, I have chosen to rely upon the accounts related to Herodotus by the priests of Egypt in those days and corrected by the poem of Solon. This makes these gods of Egypt no older than Cecrops I and Erechteus. Their successor, Menes, is no older than Theseus and Memnon and the temple of Vulcan was not more than two hundred and eighty years in construction. It is foolish to correct Herodotus by Manetho, Eratosthenes, Diodorus and others who lived after the priest of Egypt had corrupted their antiquities much more than they had done in the days of Herodotus. {a}
Why are we still using such a corrupted source as the basis for Egyptian history? Maybe the reason is that it gives dates which conflict with the Bible and which secularists can use to undermine biblical authority. In the preface to the new edition of Newton’s book, the reviser states:
“It is fascinating to see modern scholarship worship Manetho’s dynasties of kings as if it were the Gold Standard. They know it contradicts other portions of history, but nonetheless, they cling to it like a drowning man to a piece of flotsam. Newton demonstrates that Manetho’s dynasties are almost a complete work of fiction, and bad fiction, at that! They were so bad that priests who created them forgot to pass their lies onto the next generation of priests, and in a short time, the dynasties were soon forgotten by the Egyptian priests. By the time Diodorus Siculus wrote about two hundred years later, these dynasties were completely forgotten, and not a word of them was mentioned to Diodorus. Likewise, the Egyptian priests with whom Herodotus talked two hundered years earlier knew absolutely nothing of these dynasties. If they had known of them, why did they withhold this information from Herodotus? It is these fictitious dynasties that are used to date the Great Pyramid at around 2800 B.C. instead of around 800 B.C., and the same dynasties are the basis for the greatly exaggerated early Egyptian history. From the time of Herodotus to the time of Manetho, the list of kings covered from Herodotus had grown from slightly more than twenty to over one hundred and thirty and the time period had magically expanded from about five hundred years to well over twenty-seven hundred years. There are better rotten reeds to lean on when trying to recreate Egyptian history than the mess recorded by Manetho. Newton shows us a better way.
The supposed antiquity of the Assyrian empire has really fooled modern archaeologists. The fictional history of this empire by the sixth century B.C. historian, Ctesias, pales when compared to modern day fairy tales about it. The supposed battle of Quaqar in 853 B.C. in which Ahab was allegedly attacked by the Assyrians is a good case in point. Dr. Jones, in his work, The Chronology of the Old Testament, shows the impossibility of this interpretation. Further, it is not a diffucult exercise to show that Ahab was dead for over thirty years before this supposed battle happened in which he fought! Newton shows conclusively that there was no Assyrian empire before Pul in 790 B.C. Biblical scholars have never asked the right question of these Assyrian scholars: What Assyrian empire? Dr. Thiele was duped by his lack of critical thinking on this matter, as was his successor, Dr. Leslie McFall. Worse, just about every biblical work published since Thiele has been corrupted by his unbiblical analysis of the Hebrew chronology. Newton has done a masterful job exposing the fradulent history of Assyria and winnows the wheat from all the chaff. {b}
Before authors put pen to paper, they should read the giants of yesterday and treat the conjectures of today’s historical pygmies with a large grain of salt. Men like Newton and Ussher accepted the Bible uncompromisingly and used it as their guide to ancient secular history. They were well-versed in ancient classical literature, unlike most experts today who are handicapped with a modern education and all the secular baggage that comes with it.
It is a trivial exercise to show the bibilcal history as recorded in the Old Testament conflicts with modern interpretations of Assyrian and Egyptian history. For the true biblist, those histories are not valid. I challenge these authors to stop trying to recreate a biblical history on such a rotten foundation as the modern edition of Assyrian and Egyptian history. Go back to basics. Start with your Bible, not human conjectures.
You will find Newton’s book a good roadmap to correcting the mess the ancients made of their history and resolving the conflicts they created with the Bible. We have made it easy for you. His work is now rewritten in modern English and all the Greek and Latin has been translated for you. All the footnotes are updated to refer to modern works wherever possible. You have no excuse. Likewise in Ussher’s work, The Annals of the World {c}, you will find in appendices C, D, and E a complete chronology for the divided kingdom and a rebuttal of the mess created by Dr. Thiele. (Even his successor, Dr. McFall, could not find an error in the chronology in Appendix C, therefore refuting Thiele’s chronology.) Dr. Floyd Jones in his book, The Chronology of the Old Testament {d}, gives a very detailed and well-documented chronology for the entire Old Testament. He does an excellent job handling modern objections to the bibilcal history.
The works of Ussher, Newton and Jones should not only be in the library of anyone doing historical research, but also thoroughly studied to see the historical gems of knowledge they contain. Both Dr. Jones and I are up to the task of defending what they wrote. Start by unquestionably accepting the biblical history, (it has the advantage of being inspired!) and then read the historical works by men who held the Bible in the utmost esteem. You might learn something. the least of which that most of what we accept for secular history before 700 B.C. does not need a minor tweaking, but a major, major rewrite! -Larry Pierce
{a} Larry and Marion Pierce, Newton’s Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, p. 91, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2009
{b} Ibid, p. 8, 9.
{c} Larry and Marion Pierce, Ussher’s Annals of the World, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003
{d} Dr. Floyd Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2005
Filed under: Author Article | 4 Comments
Tags: Assyria, Assyrian empire, Edwin Thiele, Floyd Jones, Hittites, Larry Pierce, Shalmanaser Pillar, sir isaac newton
The Argonauts and Astronomy
[Today's post is by Larry Pierce, co-editor of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms published by Master Books.]
Homer, a 9th-century B.C. poet, describes the Argonaut Expedition in detail. Like most Greek poetry, he blends many fables with the facts to create an interesting story about ancient Greece. Greek historians date this expedition around 1230 B.C. Is this date accurate or too old? Let’s see one way [Sir Isaac] Newton checked the validity of this date.
From various ancient writers we know that Chiron created a sphere of the stars for the Argonauts to use in navigation of the stars. This sphere contained 46 of the 48 constellations known to the ancients. The names assigned to the constellations described by Chiron all relate to individuals who went on the expedition or lived a generation or so before the expedition. Chiron noted that the spring equinox was in the middle of the constellation, Aries, 15 degrees into the constellation.
The Greeks had no why the equinoxes appeared to recede through the Zodiac because they did not know about the precession of the earth on its axis. However, Newton did and knew that about every 72 years the equinox will recede about 1 degree. To recede 11 degrees takes about 792 years. Add that to 146 years and you arrive at the approximate date of 938 B.C. for the expedition. This shows that the date the Greeks assumed was too old by about 300 years.
Newton used about 5 different ways to calculate the date for this expedition and arrived at a time of 933 B.C. All his methods were within 10 or 20 years of this date. Because the Greek date for this expedition was too old, they had created imaginary kings and events to fill up these 300 years. Often they had kings with the same name living twice at different times when it was really the same king. Newton judiciously went through their history, eliminating the fictitious characters they had introduced.
Establishing the date for this expedition is very important because it is not only an anchor date for dating many events in Greek history, but also for Egyptian history. The Greeks sent this expedition into various countries to inform them about the civil problems in Egypt and to urge them to revolt from the Egyptian empire. About a generation before this expedition, Sestotris had created an Egyptian empire that stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indus River in India and north to Thrace in Greece – but more of that another time.
Filed under: Author Article | Leave a Comment
Tags: Argonaut, Chiron, Greece, Greek, Homer, newton
[Today's post is by Larry Pierce, co-editor of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms published by Master Books.]
Scholars have conjectured that the Nehemiah mentioned in Ezra 2:2 and the Ezra mentioned in Nehemiah 12:1 were different priests from the ones who wrote the books with the same names. Since the individuals first mentioned returned in 536 B.C. to Israel and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah refer to events that occurred as late as 454 B.C. (a), if they were the same individuals, Nehemiah and Ezra would be at least 120 years old. (You had to be at least 30 to become a priest.) Scholars then assume that the events in Nehemiah 1-11 are in chronological order. Hence, the events that mention Ezra in Nehemiah 7-11 follow consecutively from the earlier events in the same book.
[Sir Isaac] Newton was the first person we know of to notice that the names of the priests who returned in Nehemiah 12 in 536 B.C. are almost identical to the same priests who sealed the covenant in 454 B.C. in Nehemiah 10. That means at least 16 priests lived well past 100 years for scholars to date the events in Nehemiah 10 at 454 B.C. Based on this most improbable occurance, Newton suggested that the events of Nehemiah 7-11 occurred in 536 B.C. at the time of the first return and the book of Nehemiah is not in chronological order. This implies that there was only one Nehemiah and one Ezra who both lived to a ripe old age.
By carefully reading what we would consider a very dry list of names in Nehemiah 10 and 12, Newton was able to solve a problem with the chronology of Nehemiah and Ezra. Sadly, his brilliant solution has all but been forgotten by the modern scholars who like nothing but what is framed by themselves and hammered on their own anvil.
(a) Newton originally used the date of 445 B.C. for the 20th year of Artaxerxes, and was unaware of Ussher’s findings that this date should be 454 B.C. Likewise, Ussher was unaware of the chronological problems in the book of Nehemiah and assumed the first 11 chapters were in chronological order. We amended Newton to use the correct date deduced by Ussher. We footnoted this change when we revised Newton’s book for republication. Most modern scholars are unaware of both Ussher and Newton’s work and ignore Ussher’s revised date and Newton’s solution to the Ezra and Nehemiah problem.
Filed under: Author Article | Leave a Comment
Tags: artaxerxes, ezra, nehemiah, sir isaac newton, ussher
The Origin of Athens
[Today's post is excerpted from the book, Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms. Expertly edited by Larry and Marion Pierce, the book was written by Sir Isaac Newton and first published in 1728, a year after Newton's death. In this work, Newton applied the same genius he brought to mathematics and science to correcting errors in ancient historical timelines. Published by Master Books.]
Before the Phoenicians introduced the deification of dead men, the Greeks had a council of elders in every town for its administration and had a place where the elders and people worshipped their god with sacrifices. When many of those towns, for their common safety, united under a common council, they erected a prytaneum, or court in one of the towns. The council and people met there at certain times to consult about their common safety, to worship their common god with sacrifices, and to buy and sell. The Greeks called the towns where these councils met “peoples” or “communities” or “corporate towns.”
Finally, when many of these corporation towns, for their common safety, agreed to unite under one common council, they erected a town hall in the corporate towns for the common council and people to meet in, to consult and worship in, to feast and buy and sell. They walled this corporate town for protection and called it “the city.” This I take to have been the origins of villages, market towns, cities, common councils, vestal temples, feasts and fairs in Europe. The town hall was a court with a place of worship where a perpetual fire was burning on an altar for sacrificing. From the word, fire, came the name, vesta, which at length the people turned into a goddess, thus becoming fire worshippers like the ancient Persians. When these councils made war on their neighbors, they had a general commander to lead their armies, and he became their king.
Thucydides states that under Cecrops I and the ancient kings to the time of Theseus, Attica had always been divided into separate towns, each having magistrates and a town hall. They did not come together to consult with the king when there was no fear of danger, but each individually administered their own affairs and had their own council. Sometimes they even made war on the king, as the Eleusinians, led by Eumolpus, did against Erechtheus. When Theseus, a prudent and powerful man, became king, he abolished the courts and magistrates of the minor towns and compelled them to all meet in one council and town hall in Athens.
Polemon, as he is cited by Strabo, says that in Attica there were 170 corporate towns, of which Eleusis was one. Philochorus relates that when Attica was being devastated from the sea by the Carians and from land by the Boeotians, Cecrops I first consolidated 170 towns into 12 cities whose names were: Cecropia, Tetrapolis, Epacria, Decelia, Eleusis, Aphydna, Thoricus, Brauron, Cytherus, Sphettus, Cephissia and Phalerus. Thesus consolidated these 12 cities to create Athens.
Filed under: Book Excerpt | Leave a Comment
Tags: Athens, Attica, Greek, isaac newton, town hall
Lies Egyptians Tell
[Today's post is by Larry Pierce, co-editor of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, published by Master Books.]
When I was in high school we studied ancient history. I was told about the great antiquity of Egypt and how the civilization there started about 4000 to 3000 B.C. I was not smart enough to ask the question, “How do you know?” Since the teacher spoke with an authoritative voice, I believed what he said. I could not square what he said with biblical chronology, so I just tucked the problem away in my mind and forgot about it.
When working on Newton’s book, I learned how the Egyptians invented their history. Around 300 B.C. there was race – not an Arms Race, but an Antiquity Race. The Greeks and the Egyptians, among others, were contending with each other for who had the most ancient origin. Manetho, who was an Egyptian priest and historian, wrote a history of Egypt called Aegyptiaca. In it he recorded about 30 dynasties of Egyptian kings whom the Egyptian priests alleged ruled over Egypt. This list is not without controversy in historical circles. Scholars think at least a few of the dynasties ruled concurrently in Egypt, but do not know which ones for sure.
Now the question we should as is, “How accurate is this history?” Normally, scholars go to the oldest sources upon which to base their history. They work on the assumption that the oldest writers are closest to the events they describe and, hence, would be in a better position to describe what happened. The more time that elapses between the events and when they are recorded, the more likely errors and mistakes will creep in. In the case of Egypt, there are severe problems. First, the Assyrians and then the Persians destroyed most of their historical records. Cambyses took great delight in 525-523 B.C. in destroying Egyptian antiquities and records. Herodotus wrote his history of Egypt around 440 B.C. about 80 years after most of the Egyptian records were destroyed. The priests of his day were trying to recreate their history largely from memory.
Newton almost totally ignored Manetho and Diodorus Sicilus, who lived several hundred years after Manetho, and relied as best he could on what Herodotus wrote. He was able to positively identify the Egyptian king, Sesostris, with the biblical king of Shishak. Using that information, he was able to piece together a chronology for Egypt based on what Herodotus wrote. He looked at the average length of the reign of kings based on what Herodotus had written and found it was quite reasonable.
When comparing what Newton found from Herodotus with what Manetho wrote, one notices a world of difference. From the time of Herodotus to the time of Manetho, the list of kings covered by Herodotus had grown from slightly more than 20 to over 130 and the time period had magically expanded from about 500 years to well over 2700 years. Notwithstanding accepted historical methods, the mess that Manetho recorded is the basis for modern Egyptology in spite of the problems it causes!
Newton has shown us that the more realistic history of Egypt creates no contradictions with the biblical record, but indeed complements it perfectly. The work of Manetho is almost a complete work of fiction, and bad fiction, at that.
Filed under: Author Article | Leave a Comment
Tags: ancient history, Cambyses, Egypt, Herodotus, Manetho, newton, Sesostris, Shishak
Writing & History
[Today's post is by Larry Pierce, co-editor of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, published by Master Books.]
Most of us take writing for granted and just assume everyone knows how to read and write. Well, if you cannot write things down, how well do you remember them? Try reconstructing your family tree from memory and see how far you get. I can go back about 3 generations before everything becomes a misty haze. If you can go back more than 100 years, you are really doing well. The farther back you go, the less you know.
The North American Indians left no written history. They passed their history along by word of mouth to each new generation. Needless to say, it does not take very long before things get quite muddled. Next time you are at a party, line up 20 people and tell the first person in the chain a story. Ask him to repeat it to the next person and so on until the last person is told the story. Then ask the last person to tell what he heard and then read to them what you told the first person. Everyone will have a good laugh at how quickly the message became garbled.
Newton shows that without a written history, stories of events much older than 100 years cannot be trusted. He also documented when various cultures received a written language. It appears many of the descendants of Shem always had a written language. This is especially true of the Hebrews. However, the Greeks did not receive theirs until around 1100 B.C. The Britons had none until the first century and the Irish much later than this; Scythians had none until 280 A.D. and the Huns had none until about 500 B.C. and so on.
Even if a nation has a written history, they might have much of it destroyed by invading armies. This happened to Egypt in 523 B.C. and Rome in 390 B.C. It was over 150 years after the Gauls sacked Rome that the Romans started to write down their history again.
Just like your own example with your family tree, you can see how difficult it would be for the Romans or anyone else to try to reconstruct an accurate history of events older than 100 years or so. If one reads Bill Cooper’s book, After the Flood, you quickly note that he is relying on records that could not have been written for many hundreds of years after the events they describe. This is so because this is at least the amount of time between the events and the time these cultures acquired a written language. What he has done seems more worthy of encouragement than praise since in writing his book he attempts to do a thing which is beyond human capacity and knowledge.
Another problem with written history is the manner in which one does it. The Greeks never really started to record their history in prose until around the time of Herodotus. Much of Greek history before this time was woven into poems which contained as much poetic fiction as fact. Never let facts crimp your poetic style!
So early Greek history has at least 2 problems – an inaccurate timeline as we noted in the previous blog post, plus a history full of poetic fictions. What Newton did is try to establish the time for certain key events in Greek history and then fit the other events around these key events. He used various ways of doing this which we will describe in later posts.
So we have seen that without writing, you cannot have an accurate history of events much older than 100 years. Many nations claim to have a very ancient history long predating their ability to write! We must take such histories with a grain of salt.
Filed under: Author Article | 2 Comments
Tags: family tree, Greeks, Hebrews, history, newton, rome, Shem, writing, written history
[Today's post is by Larry and Marion Pierce, co-editors of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, published by Master Books.]
When someone asks you how long ago was it when the Second World War started, is your first reply “2 generations ago?” Or do you say it was “2 monarchs ago?” If you do the latter, you are the exception, for most people measure the passing of events in years. For us, this seems so obvious it is hardly worth mentioning.
When we open our Bibles, in the very first chapter we find that God gave lights in the heavens to mark the passage of seasons, days and years. In the 5th chapter of Genesis we find the first family tree. All important events are demarked by years. Throughout the Old Testament years are used to note the passing of time. Now the Hebrews did not use an absolute reference point for their history, like the number of years from creation, but noted the passing of time in years from a previous event. From that you can easily construct an ancient calendar of events.
The Hebrew history closes around 500-400 B.C. just about the time the secular nations were starting to record their early history. It may come as a surprise to many that they did not use years directly. They measured time by the number of kings who ruled or the number of generations that lived. They assumed about 3 generations to 100 years and about 3 kings to 100-120 years. From this they mapped events back into years.
Even though the Olympiads were around since 776 B.C., Newton notes that it was only around 250 B.C. that they were used to date events in history and only about 200 B.C. did they start to consistently use years in recording their history.
This has some very serious implications for many secular historical dates before 500 B.C. Unless dates can be confirmed independently by biblical data, most of them are too old. Newton analyzed a dozen dynasties of kings including those of Israel and Judah and determined that the average length of the reign of a king was not 35-40 years as the ancients thought, but between 18-20 years.
Newton uses this information to re-date early Greek and Roman history in the absence of other, more accurate ways. For instance, Newton notes that nowhere in recorded history has a dynasty of 7 kings ruled for 243 years, which averages to about 35 years each. But this is exactly what Roman historians claim.
To make matters even more improbable, 5 of the 7 kings were either murdered, deposed or succeeded by their brothers who were of equal or greater age. Therefore, Newton re-dates the founding of Rome from 753 B.C. to around 627 B.C. This averages to about a 15-year reign for each king. He uses the lower number because Rome was a rather turbulent kingdom before the Republic was founded in 508 B.C. and being a king would definitely affect your longevity!
From this account of how the ancients reckoned time, you can easily see that the Hebrews were the master historians of antiquity. Only they have accurate records going back to creation, and their chronology should be used as the backbone to reconstruct the ancient history of secular nations. Also, the Hebrews had no small advantage in that only their history is inerrant and inspired by God! No other nation can make that claim.
[Save 20% off the retail price of Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms online at http://masterbooks.net.]
Filed under: Author Article | Leave a Comment
Tags: ancient kingdoms, Genesis, God, hebrew, history, isaac newton, newton, rome, years
When you think of Sir Isaac Newton, you normally think of a great scientist and mathematician. His contributions to these areas of human knowledge are enormous. The same genius he applied to other disciplines, Newton also brings to ancient history. Like a first-rate defense attorney, Newton cross-examines ancient writers, using their own words against them to expose their logical inconsistencies. He then develops a more sound chronology using the scientific method based on logic, observations, astronomy, and just plain common sense.
Newton worked on his Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms for over 40 years, but it was not published until 1728, a year after he died. Now Master Books republishes this landmark book in a format and style suitable for today’s readers. Today, most of secular history before 700 BC will need drastic revisions in light of Newton’s detailed findings.
- Re-visits chronologies of early and major civilizations
- Critically investigates and analyzes historical sources
- Exposes errors and exaggerations still commonly taken as fact, even today
- Corrects many errors about the early history of civilization
- Contains diagrams of Solomon’s temple
Sir Isaac Newton is a classic scholar who contributed groundbreaking theories and discoveries to many early fields of study, including calculus, an early design for telescopes still used today, and astronomy where his theory of gravitation illuminates the seemingly erratic motions of many heavenly bodies. This pivotal work of chronology is a landmark achievement by one of mankind’s most accomplished individuals.
Filed under: Book Review | Leave a Comment
Tags: ancient history, gravitation, isaac newton
Newton’s Revised History
Subscribe in a reader-
