The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

482 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Classical Hebrew and his command of its grammar, usage and style appear to
be defective. Moreover, his entire argumentation consists of the feeblest
possible postulates, to wit:
He begins by presenting some very categorical statements, entirely without
evidence, after which he surmises that the parts of the inspired Bible text with
which he disagrees are ‘ambiguous’, which they are not; then he tries to make
the Hebrew text say something which simply is not in it, and when that appears
impossible he opts for the LXX and the Old Ethiopic versions, both of which
are defective or faulty in the verses referred to. In his dealings with the main
scriptures under discussion, from Jeremiah, Daniel and the Chronicler, he bases
much of his argument on three tiny particles, trying to make them say what no
Hebrew dictionary, grammar or translator accept, all apparently in the hope that
his gullible readers will believe him. The only grammar book he refers to is a
rather short syntax, actually little more than a collection of samples whose
author does not even stay within the referential framework of Hebrew
grammatical nomenclature, but creates his own terms, which, of course, is not
very helpful to the students. And the only Hebrew dictionary to which he refers
casually is a new and relatively little known work, which, when examined, does
not even support his claims! And in his description of a truly scholarly
treatment of the subject he has chosen for himself he appears to be entirely out
of his depth - it is as though he cannot see the wood for the trees!
In a sense, it is somewhat difficult to find out exactly what RF believes in,
because for years he has been known as a member of the congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, defending their positions on the matters discussed in his
book. However, apparently he does not share their absolute faith in the Bible as
God’s inspired and truthful word, such as when he claims that parts of God’s
Word are ‘ambiguous’, which they are not according to the usual Watchtower
doctrine; their views of the entire Bible may be summed up in Paul’s statement,
‘All Scripture Is Inspired of God and beneficial’ (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), cf the
Watchtower publication bearing that title. Furthermore, he criticizes the
Adventist scholar Ross Winkle for ‘assuming that what the Bible says is true’,
which for him apparently is a mere starting point for his own private
ruminations. As for the chronology of the period in question, he also feels
entitled to assess these matters for himself, without any regard for the weighty
results of the diligent research by numerous competent scholars worldwide. In
this method, however, he seems to emulate his Watchtower mentors, who also
handles such matters in their own way, as was revealed by Raymond Franz, the
former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses who wrote the
long chapter on chronology in the book Aid to Bible Understanding (New York
1969, 1971); in his own book Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta, 4 th edition 2002), he
explained that in trying to prove historically the date set for Jerusalem’s
destruction by the witnesses (607 BCE) he discovered that there was no
evidence for this whatsoever. Now, what did this seasoned Watchtower writer
do under such circumstances? This he explains in detail (page 26):
Everything pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published
chronology claimed. Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe
that our chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence. Thus,