Posts by Jeffro

6

Interesting stats from the UK Home Office on 'hate crime'

by LoveUniHateExams in

apparently, a rape victim of the asian grooming gangs has wrote to the home office after breaking down the hate crime unit's statistics on hate crimes in the uk.. apparently, the guy who ran over a muslim outside finsbury park mosque committed a hate crime, but the islamist who ran people over and stabbed people on london bridge did not, according to the hate crime unit within the home office.. very interesting video detailing dodgy presentation of statistics ….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi4pdojpc1c.

Jeffro

LoveUniHateExams:

Ok, so you didn't watch the whole video.

I didn't watch the video. I replied to your statement which included an incorrect assessment of the London Bridge attack. Not really interested in watching some partisan video at the moment, and if your incorrect definition of the London Bridge is a typical example of representations made by the video, I'm probably better off that way. But since I'm not watching the video, all I'm saying is that the London Bridge incident has been mischaracterised either by the video or by you.

6

Interesting stats from the UK Home Office on 'hate crime'

by LoveUniHateExams in

apparently, a rape victim of the asian grooming gangs has wrote to the home office after breaking down the hate crime unit's statistics on hate crimes in the uk.. apparently, the guy who ran over a muslim outside finsbury park mosque committed a hate crime, but the islamist who ran people over and stabbed people on london bridge did not, according to the hate crime unit within the home office.. very interesting video detailing dodgy presentation of statistics ….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi4pdojpc1c.

Jeffro

LoveUniHateExams:

did you check out the way the Hate Crime Unit breaks down stats by race and presents these?

I refer only to the specific mischaracterisation of the London Bridge attack, not whether there is some broader real or imagined issue, which I have not investigated. However, it may be the case that other attacks that you might consider hate crimes may not have had a specific enough target to warrant that definition.

6

Interesting stats from the UK Home Office on 'hate crime'

by LoveUniHateExams in

apparently, a rape victim of the asian grooming gangs has wrote to the home office after breaking down the hate crime unit's statistics on hate crimes in the uk.. apparently, the guy who ran over a muslim outside finsbury park mosque committed a hate crime, but the islamist who ran people over and stabbed people on london bridge did not, according to the hate crime unit within the home office.. very interesting video detailing dodgy presentation of statistics ….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi4pdojpc1c.

Jeffro

LoveUniHateExams:

Apparently, the guy who ran over a Muslim outside Finsbury Park Mosque committed a hate crime, but the Islamist who ran people over and stabbed people on London Bridge did not, according to the Hate Crime Unit within the Home Office.

The London Bridge attack was categorised as Terrorism rather than a Hate Crime because it was perpetrated by a specific group against indiscriminate targets whereas the UK legal definition of a hate crime specifically targets an identified group ('random people on a bridge' or 'probably not Muslims' are not specific categories to warrant the legal definition in question). Nothing to see here.

56

Most of you KNOW it that we witnesses have the Truth from the Bible

by TruthMatters in

it just that the gb has a problem mixing biblical fact with goofy opinions.. but at least is isn't like the churces!.

.

Jeffro

jhine:

Thanks Jeffro . I thought that Simon had disfellowshipped him .

Sorry, I wasn't responding to your comment, I just meant that I saw the thread had a few more pages since I had last looked.

It is possible that his implied invitation has been revoked. 🤣

56

Most of you KNOW it that we witnesses have the Truth from the Bible

by TruthMatters in

it just that the gb has a problem mixing biblical fact with goofy opinions.. but at least is isn't like the churces!.

.

Jeffro

Oh, he's still here. But he completely ignored the problems with the JW definition of the 'holy spirit' that I indicated in the first page of this thread... what a surprise.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

Jeffro

Rattigan350:

Jeffro, 605 or 607, it does not matter.

What you're calling '607' refers to events that were actually 18 years later than the actual year 605 BCE, and it would be very dishonest to suggest it's just 'quibbling about 2 years'. And it matters a great deal in the context of people who are told they have to be believe superstitious claims about conveniently invisible 'fulfilments' or face shunning and/or threats of annihilation.

Chronology from back then wasn't that accurate as they didn't keep good records.

The Bible's records of the Neo-Babylonian period are in agreement with Neo-Babylonian records. The Babylonians kept meticulous records. Business records are known for every single year of the Neo-Babylonian period, including all the transitions from one king to the next. It is one of the best attested periods in ancient history.

If chronology mattered, they would have started counting years when Adam was created or at the flood.

🤣 Adam and the flood are both mythological (both based on older Babylonian stories), so obviously they would not be a reliable basis for counting genuine history.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

Jeffro

scholar:

Ditto. we will battle again.

‘Battle’ 😂 yeah, sure.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

Jeffro

Anyone have questions about the drivel from 'scholar'? Happy to answer any questions, but I've grown bored of going in circles with direct responses for now. I'll be checking in periodically for any requests for rebuttal or clarification from rational contributors.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

Jeffro

scholar:

This statement is problematic because nowhere in the Bible is the Fall of Assyria associated with the 70 years and that is why many scholars date the 70 years from Neb's reign which began according to their reckoning in 605/604 BCE so this latter date would be a better fit than 609 BCE which historically is a 'fuzzy date. The difficulty is that scholars cannot agree as to the 'beginning' of the 70 years as no definitive date can be assigned. The date 609 BCE meets the arithmetic; 609 BCE - 70 years = 539 BCE or alternatively, 605 BCE - 70 years=535 BCE not the posited date of 539 BCE. BIG POBLEM HERE !!!!!!

'Oh no... something actually fits the Bible's description of Babylon's 70 years... quick, replace it with an obviously flawed straw man argument.' 🤣

Incorrect: The jews could not have returned in 538 BCE because they were still travelling or had not then left so it must have been in 537 BCE having already resettled in their cities by the seventh month in 537 BCE.- Ezra 3:1. Josephus agrees with WT scholars that the 70 years ended with the Decree of Cyrus which led to the end of the Exile and the 70 years and not the fall of Babylon previously..

Nope, wrong again. There were 6 months between Cyrus' accession until arriving in October. Plenty of time for arranging provisions and making the four-month trip. Your assertion that "they were still travelling or had not then left" is based on absolutely nothing. There are no 'WT scholars', and Josephus states that the temple construction began in Cyrus' second year, which is not compatible with the Watch Tower Society's claims.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

Jeffro

scholar:

Nonsense: If this is really the case then you should be able to tabulate historically when each of those nations served Babylon.

Yes, you're right - that is nonsense. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society actually put it best on this one in Isaiah's Prophecy, volume 1, page 253:

True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

Of course, it would be a fallactious argument from silence to assert that 70 years can only be applied to Judah because specific periods of desolation are not known for every nation (or any particular subset) that was subject to Babylon.