25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON, “PTOLEMY’S<br />

CANON,” AND “THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY”<br />

<strong>The</strong> following material is adapted from the discussion on pages 44–<br />

48 of the first and second editions of my book, <strong>The</strong> <strong>Gentile</strong> <strong>Times</strong><br />

<strong>Reconsidered</strong> (published in 1983 and 1986), with some updates and<br />

additions.<br />

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON (who died in 1991) was a<br />

noted physicist who has published a series of outstanding works on<br />

the secular accelerations of the moon and the earth. He examined<br />

in detail hundreds of astronomical observations dating all the way<br />

from the present back to about 700 BC, in order to determine the<br />

rate of the slowly changing of the length of the day during this<br />

period. <strong>The</strong> best information on his research in this area is found in<br />

his book, <strong>The</strong> Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1,<br />

published in 1979. His results have more recently been further<br />

refined by other scholars, in particular by F. Richard Stephenson.<br />

(Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, Cambridge: Cambridge<br />

University Press, 1997)<br />

Accusations against Claudius Ptolemy not new<br />

<strong>The</strong> claim that Claudius Ptolemy ”deliberately fabricated” many of<br />

his observations is not new. Astronomers have questioned<br />

Ptolemy’s observations for centuries. As early as 1008 AD ibn<br />

Yunis concluded that they contained serious errors, and by about<br />

1800 astronomers had recognized that almost all of Ptolemy’s<br />

observations were in error. In 1817, Delambre asked: ”Did<br />

Ptolemy do any observing? Are not the observations that he claims<br />

to have made merely computations from his tables, and examples<br />

to help in explaining his theories?” – J.B.J. Delambre, Histoire de<br />

l’Astronomie Ancienne, Paris 1817, Vol. II, p. XXV; as quoted by<br />

Robert R. Newton in <strong>The</strong> Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins<br />

[MAPO], Vol. I, (Baltimore and London: <strong>The</strong> Johns Hopkins<br />

University Press, 1979), p. 43.<br />

Two years later (in 1819) Delambre also concluded that Ptolemy<br />

fabricated some of his solar observations and demonstrated how<br />

the fabrication was made. (Newton, MAPO I, p. 44) More recently,<br />

other astronomers have re-examined Ptolemy’s observations and<br />

arrived at similar results. One of them is Professor Robert R.<br />

Newton. In his book, <strong>The</strong> Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and<br />

London: <strong>The</strong> Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Newton<br />

claims that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the<br />

394

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!