70 Weeks!

The jws explanation of the 70 weeks prophecy is fairly similar to other religions. 7 weeks, followed by 62 weeks, followed by 1 week. But as we will see, the differences will expose just how deceitful the Watchtower Society is. It also will raise more issues with the 1914 date. First, let's see how the jws explain this prophecy.

They cite 3 noteworty events that need to be considered with regards to the beginning of the 70 weeks. First, Cyrus the King of Persia issued a decree in 537 bce that freed the Jews, allowing them to return to their homeland and rebuild the temple. Second, during the 7th year of Artaxerxes, the King of Persia, Ezra carried a letter written by the King to Jerusalem allowing the Jews to beautify the temple. And third, during the 20th year of Artaxerxes, word was given to restore Jerusalem.

Thus the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. 7 weeks to finish rebuilding Jerusalem, 62 weeks for the Messiah to appear, and 1 week for the Messiah to be cut off. So far, so good. But here is the part where the jws explanation begins to unravel.

They use the solar calendar instead of the lunar calendar. That throws the years off already. But instead of recognizing this error and "adjusting their thinking" or "admitting their mistake" as they claim to do, they attempt to claim that Artaxerxes began his rule 10 years earlier. Of course, for that to be possible, they attempt to say that his predecessor Xerxes was in a coregency with his father Darius. Quoting Herodotus, they state, " There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: "Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice."This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius." Of course, once again, any careful review of a WT Society quote attempt shows that they attempt to distort the true fact from the reader. Herodotus proves this in his next few sentences, "Xerxes, then, was publicly proclaimed as next in succession to the crown, and Darius was free to turn his attention to the war. Death, however, cut him off before his preparations were complete; he died in the year following this incident and the Egyptian rebellion, after a reign of thirtysix years, and so was robbed of his chance to punish either Egypt or the Athenians. After his death the crown passed to his son Xerxes."

If Darius died only one year after naming Xerxes as his successor, that destroys the claim of some 10 year coregency between the two.

And then there is the flight of Themistocles. He was an Athenian general that fell out of favor with the Greeks and was accused of treason. He fled and eventually ended up in Persia. The claim is that he met with Artaxerxes not long after he had become King, and that Themistocles died in 471 bce. However, Plutarch writes that other historians note that it was Xerxes that met Themistocles.

Carl Olof Jonsson writes the following:"The Watch Tower Society, then, conceals that Plutarch goes on to say that a number of ancient historians had written about this event, and that most of them stated that Xerxes, not Artaxerxes, was on the throne when Themistocles came to Persia. Although Plutarch (c 46-120 A.D.) felt that Thucydides was more reliable, he stresses that the chronological data were by no means securely established. One fact that usually seems to be ignored is that Thucydides wrote his story about Themistocles’ flight some time after 406 BC, or about two generations after the event. He contradicts himself several times in this narrative, which shows that his information on the subject cannot be trusted. (On this, see the Cambridge Ancient History, V, 1992, p. 14.)
But even if Themistocles really may have met Artaxerxes, there is nothing to show that this occurred in the 470’s. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that Themistocles died in 471/70 BC. None of the sources referred to by the Society says so, and some of them, including Plutarch, clearly show that he died much later, in about 459 BC. (Plutarch's Lives, XXXI:2-5) A considerable time passed after the attempt to defame Themistocles in Athens in the archonship of Praxiergus (471/70 BC) until his interview with Artaxerxes (or Xerxes). It took several attempts before the enemies of Themistocles succeeded and forced him to flee, first from Athens and finally from Greece. Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. 5, pp. 62ff.) dates this flight to 569 BC. He first fled to some friends in Asia Minor, where he stayed for some time. The Society quotes Diodorus Siculus in support of the 471/70 date for the beginning of the defamation of Themistocles, but avoids to mention Diodorus’ statement that, on Themistocles’ arrival in Asia Minor, Xerxes was still on the throne in Persia! (Diodorus Siculus, XI:54-59) This, of course, conflicts with Thucydides’ statement that Themistocles’ letter from Asia Minor was sent to Artaxerxes.

After some time, evidently after some years, in Asia Minor, Themistocles finally went to Persia. There he first spent one year studying the language before his meeting with the king. This meeting may have occured toward the end of 465 BC or early in 464 BC. As historian A. T. Olmstead argues, Xerxes may very well have been on the throne when Themistocles arrived in Persia, but may have died shortly afterwards, so that Themistocles, after his year of learning the language, met Artaxerxes. In this way the conflicting statements by the ancient historians may at least partially be harmonized.

After his meeting with the Persian king, Themistocles settled in the city of Magnesia, where he lived on for some years before he died. (Plutarch's Lives, XXXI:2-5) It is completely impossible, therefore, to date his death to 471/70 BC, as done by the Watch Tower Society."

There are also several astronomical diaries that confirm the years of when Xerxes and Artaxerxes reigned as King. I'm not going to list them all, but there are many of them.

This is strong proof that the Watchtower Society will stoop to deception in an attempt to change history. what they do not realize is that by changing the reigns of the Persian Kings, it would also throw off the 607/1914 dates. The Persian dates are essential in attempting to establish the backbone of their religion, so it makes one wonder why they would attempt to mess with that particular history. It is the exact same claims that were made about the reigns of the Babylonian Kings. But those claims have been proven false.

Resurrection, Why Bother?

Acts 24:15 says that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. Other verses share this view.

Daniel 12:2--Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Matthew 25:46--"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

John 5:28, 29--"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

So the good folks being raised get rewarded with eternal life. This is understandable since these people would have earned this by their deeds. But what does not make sense to me is the eternal punishment of the bad people.

First of all, the wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23) Once a person dies, their sins are payed for. So what would be the point of bringing them back? To judge them again and then kill them? Proverbs 11:19 says--"The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death." I don't subscribe to the hellfire doctrine as it appears that the penalty for wicked deeds is death.

There is another point to consider that makes this scenario even more unrealistic. Read Revelation chapter 20 and as you do, note each point being made. Here is the outline that I jotted down in case you are feeling lazy.

1. Satan is tossed into the Abyss for 1000 years.
2. Chosen ones get to rule with Christ for 1000 years.
3. The rest of the dead do not get resurrected until the 1000 years has ended.
4. Satan is let loose after the 1000 years has ended.
5. Satan deceives the majority of humankind once again.
6. Satan and his horde of evil humans march on God's city.
7. Fire consumes the attacking army.
8. Satan is tossed into a lake of burning sulphur.
9. They will be tormented day and night forever.
10. The dead are judged and the ones not found in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire.

How many things can you find wrong with this list? For starters, Satan is let loose at the same time that the rest of the dead, otherwise known as the earthly subjects, are brought back to life. So how difficult do you think it will be for Satan to deceive the majority of humankind that he already fooled once? Pretty easy since it says their number will be like the sand on the seashore. Then there is the human horde getting consumed by fire. Since this army is the majority of humankind, and this happens before the actual judging occurs, who of the unrighteous will there be left to judge?

The jws teach that the dead will be brought back during the 1000 years. And it is during the 1000 years that they will be brought back to perfection. They say that if this is not the case, the anointed would be ruling over a desolate globe.

Like every other topic, the jws miss the obvious. Verse 5 blows away their speculative reasoning. Maybe they forgot about the Armageddon survivors. They try to use Eph. 2:1 to back up this claim. But if you read the verse in context with the surrounding verses, it is obviously talking about the ones ruling with Christ in heaven.

The thought of resurrecting someone just to inform them of their evil deeds and then kill them again does not make any sense. Especially since their sin would have been paid for from dying the first time.