Those who participated on the Latter Rain forum will likely recall a bellicose individual named Tom Holt who frequently cited Sir Isaac Newton as one of the proofs that "godly Bible teachers" support the practice of date-setting, that is, attempts to predict the exact day and hour when Christ will return. Below are a few of the statements this individual made to the Latter Rain board:
"Sir Isaac Newton - the "Father of Modern Physics", who, in AD 1715 wrote
that the Bible shows that Christ will return on Judgment Day after AD
2000"
"you need to read Newton's Studies In Daniel 9---time will tell if he was right
in 1715, about 2060...if you're interested in date setters, you can EASILY
research the date setting of Luther [seems he set a date in his day, and one
in ~2,000AD], many, many Puritans ["the high water mark of Bible scholarship"];
Rutherford, Cotton [Boston], and Gillespie - leaders of the Westminster Assembly
of 1648"
"5. Why do all the churches and most professing Christians fanatically jump
to profess that "Oh, nobody can know"?---because they do not WANT the
world to End - they are satisfied with life on earth, and they actually fear
Judgment Day; they don't realize that MANY godly and faithful Bible teachers
like Martin Luther, Sir Isaac Newton, and the leaders of the Westminster
Assembly of 1648, and many Puritans knew that the date of the End is
actually in Scripture. [Luther and Newton realized that date was in the era of
2,000 AD !!!]"
Based on Mr Holt's statements one might get the impression that Sir Isaac Newton did indeed support the practice of date-setting, but did he really? Stephen Snobelen, a Canadian researcher who has studied Newton's prophetic writings in great detail, was interviewed by the BBC in 2003 for a documentary on Sir Isaac Newton. In that interview Mr Snobelen showed a manuscript in which Newton mentions the year 2060 AD, however the BBC took Mr Snobelen's comments and sensationalized them claiming Newton had predicted Christ would return in 2060 AD. This is turn led to a front page article in London's Daily Telegraph, saying Christ would return in "just 57 years". In response to this misrepresentation of Newton, Mr Snobelen issued a clarifying statement regarding his comments to the BBC:
Snobelen's Statement on Newton's 2060 prediction
In his statement Mr Snobelen notes that Newton only mentions the year 2060 AD twice in all his writings, and he provides direct quotes of what Newton said in order to show the context surrounding Newton's mention of the year 2060 AD:
Newton's Yahuda Manuscript 7.3o, folio 8 recto:
"Prop. 1. The 2300 prophetick days did not commence before the rise of the little horn of the He Goat.
2 Those day did not commence after the destruction of Jerusalem & ye Temple by the Romans A.D. 70.
3 The time times & half a time did not commence before the year 800 in wch the Popes supremacy commenced
4 They did not commence after the reigne of Gregory the 7th. 1084
5 The 1290 days did not commence before the year 842.
6 They did not commence after the reigne of Pope Greg. 7th. 1084
7 The diffence between the 1290 & 1335 days are a parts of the seven weeks.
Therefore the 2300 years do not end before ye year 2132 nor after 2370.
The time times & half time do not end before 2060 nor after [2344]
The 1290 days do not begin [this should read: end] before 2090 nor after 1374 [sic; Newton probably means 2374]"
It's clear from the above manuscript that Newton was making future year calculations using various biblical numbers (2300 days, 1290 days, 1335 days, and 1260 days). It's also clear Newton was using the "day for a year" principle to launch from historical dates (70 AD, 800 AD, 842 AD, 1084 AD) to future dates (2132 AD, 2370 AD, 2060 AD, 2344 AD, 2090 AD, 2374 AD). So without a doubt it's clear that Newton believed the numbers in the Bible could or did point to future events, however it's equally clear Newton was only able to *bound* the problem, i.e., find a *range* of future years for future events, not a specific future year. Further, for each biblical number (2300 days, 1290 days, etc), Newton found a *different* range of years. So the end result was 3 range of years, with each range of years spanning hundreds of years (i.e., 2132 to 2370 for 2300 days, 2060 to 2344 for 1260 days, and 2090 to 2374 for 1290 days). So the fact is about all that could be said for the above analysis is that Newton was confident that these things would not happen until well after his lifetime, and as it turns out, this is the very reason Newton undertook to make these calculations in the first place, as we'll discover in the second manuscript in which Newton mentions the year 2060 AD:
Newton's Yahuda Manuscript 7.3g, folio 13 verso:
"So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, recconing twelve months to a yeare & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060. It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons wch God hath put into his own breast."
In this manuscript Newton focuses on just the biblical number 1260 days, and the reason for this should be apparent from what we saw in the first manuscript, because Newton had determined that of all the biblical numbers 1260 days resulted in the earliest possible date for a future event, 2060 AD (the earliest possible date calculated for 1290 days was 2090 AD, and that for 2300 days was 2132 AD). And why did Newton do this? In this manuscript Newton clearly states why he made these calculations, they were done "not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail". It is abundantly clear that Newton posited a date so far beyond his lifetime (early 1700's) that it would in his estimation put a stop to those in his day who were making predictions, predictions and each and every time proved wrong. Further, Newton makes his position on datesetting crystal clear, saying "Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons wch God hath put into his own breast". So we see that Newton was certainly not a datesetter as people like Tom Holt erroneously claim, nor did he support in any way the concept of datesetting! Newton, being the wise man that he was, instead used the methodology of the datesetters of his day to essentially shut them up!
As an aside, regarding Newton's "2060 AD" date, he wrote that this date would be the end, not of the world, but of the kingdom of the Beast (which he believed to be the Papal church), and that it was at this time that Christ would return to set up His millennial kingdom where He would reign on earth for a 1000 years (yes, Newton was a pre-millennialist). Another point to note from Newton's writings is that even though he arrived at 2060 AD as the earliest possible termination point for the 1260 days, he had also determined that the earliest termination point for the 1290 days was the year 2090 AD, and for the 2300 days was 2132 AD. That is, Newton's calculations indicated the earliest year for the end of the world couldn't be before 2132 AD, the earliest year he calculated for the termination of the 2300 days. So even if Newton were right about the 1260 days being in the year 2060 AD, we still have to wait at least another 72 years for the 2300 days to end (not to mention the 1000 years for the millennium)!
In summary, it's quite clear that Tom Holt's comments about Sir Isaac Newton supporting the practice of date-setting, and being a datesetter himself, are utter and complete nonsense, and just a frivolous attempt at name-dropping in order to give the appearance of credibility to his tenuous position.