xero

The same thing is involved when I hear people say "I encouraged that brother". I always say, no you didn't. If you'll look and see he still appears to be discouraged. What you should have said is "I attempted to encourage that brother, but I failed." 

I suspect that the interpretation of the locus of the action leading to the hardening of pharaoh's heart is interpreted variously due to social values and ideas current at any given time. Both can be true with qualification. Jehovah has created this universe and all the natural cause-effect relations which allow for a measure of free will so one could say he caused the heart-hardening, on the other hand we could also say he allowed it insofar as he allows us to have free will.
Of course we could ask how we pretend to know our will is free.

Gallipoli (the movie) - Just because your leaders tell you something, doesn't mean A. They are lying or B. They always correct

Gallipoli (the movie) - Just because your leaders tell you something, doesn't mean A. They are lying or B. They always correct

Gallipoli (the movie) - Just because your leaders tell you something, doesn't mean A. They are lying or B. They always correct

@JW Insider Where did the extra 2 years come from? 1943+100=2043. 2043-3960=1917 (adjusted no zero is 1916)

So here in Genesis 15 we have a verse of the Bible, which in context is about the Abrahamic Covenant and is also a very clear discussion of chronology. It points out the time, the actual number of years, when the heirs of Abraham would inherit the land promised to him and his seed. It not only speaks to the chronology in years, but mentions the number of generations that would overlap until the time had reached its full measure!
Note first of all that the number of years of age of each animal is mentioned, so it must be important. 3 years + 3 years + 3 years. The age of the birds is not so specified, but the word "young" is mentioned indicating that they are about 1 year old each. So we have 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 11 years of age total. 11 times 360 prophetic days in each year is a total of 3,960 days, therefore 3,960 years.
So when did this covenant with Abraham's go into effect? The Insight book gives us the starting point:
*** it-1 p. 29 Abraham ***
Sojourn in Canaan. Now 75 years old, Abraham began to move his household out of Haran to the land of Canaan, where he lived out the remaining hundred years of his life in tents as an alien and migratory resident. (Ge 12:4) It was following the death of his father Terah that Abraham went out from Haran in 1943 B.C.E. and crossed the Euphrates River, evidently on the 14th day of the month that later became known as Nisan. (Ge 11:32; Ex 12:40-43, LXX) It was at that time that the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham went into effect, and the 430-year period of temporary residence until the making of the Law covenant with Israel began.—Ex 12:40-42; Ga 3:17.
So we start with the year 1943 BCE. But we also make a necessary adjustment, the same one made by C.T.Russell, as mentioned in our book "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached!" (ka):
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 206-208 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
THE CORRECTING OF A MISUNDERSTANDING
…  The above chronology followed the suggestion that was made in Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, in its footnote on Acts 13:20, which verse read: “And after these things, he gave Judges about four hundred and fifty years, till Samuel the prophet.” The footnote on this reading of the verse said:
A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Biblical chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one which seems entirely satisfactory, i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1 has been corrupted, by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5) which is very similar in form. This would make 580 years (instead of 480) from the exode to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul’s chronology.
51 Accordingly, on page 53 of the book entitled “The Time Is at Hand,” author C. T. Russell wrote, referring to 1 Kings 6:1:
It evidently should read the five-hundred-and-eightieth year, and was possibly an error in transcribing; for if to Solomon’s four years we add David’s forty, and Saul’s space of forty, and the forty-six years from leaving Egypt to the division of the land, we have one hundred and thirty years, which deducted from four hundred and eighty would leave only three hundred and fifty years for the period of the Judges, instead of the four hundred and fifty years mentioned in the Book of Judges, and by Paul, as heretofore shown. The Hebrew character “daleth” (4) very much resembles the character “hay” (5), and it is supposed that in this way the error has occurred, possibly the mistake of a transcriber. I Kings 6:1, then, should read five hundred and eighty, and thus be in perfect harmony with the other statements.
Thus, by inserting 100 years into the Bible chronology during the period of the Judges, man’s creation was pushed back 100 years . . .
So there we have it: 1945 BCE + 100 years = 2045 BCE. 3,960 years from 2045 = 1915 and since there was no zero year, that brings us exactly to 1914.
Please let me know what you think. Let me know if I have made any mistakes or false assumptions.

For example we've been recently admonished via scripture to "not hurry ourselves to become offended" and in the same admonishment hear the words "someone hurt our feelings".
Do you see how the former suggests the locus of control is internal, that becoming offended is an act of the will on our part, whereas the latter is an external locus of control and lacking in free will, but rather a reaction to an external act?
 
The latter, in my view is more along the lines of "I didn't like what you said" vs "you hurt my feelings" as if ones "feelings" was some naked worm crawling along the sidewalk defenseless against being stepped on.
 

It's click "bait".

It's click "bait".

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19966-because-children-have-abounding-vitality-because-they-are-in-spirit
 

What does red taste like, what does it sound like, what does it smell like?
Is your perception of red the same as mine?
 

What does red taste like, what does it sound like, what does it smell like?
Is your perception of red the same as mine?
 

It's next to the third tesseract on the left.

It's next to the third tesseract on the left.

It's next to the third tesseract on the left.

Imagine yourself living at the end of the 1st and the beginning of the second century and you were in one of the seven congregations. Imagine the letter was read to you how Jesus viewed your congregation. You also got to hear what he had to say about the other congregations. If you thought the others were getting a better report, would you abandon your congregation to move to the one with the better report, or would you have stayed and helped to improve it? Or would you have abandoned the project of being a Christian entirely imagining wrongly that you could go it alone. "It's just me, Jesus and Jehovah against the world of darkness out there!", you might imagine to yourself. (and you'd be wrong).
You simply cannot be a Christian by yourself. You need the perpetual annoyances of the congregation to live up to the requirements. Oh, you might say to yourself "What about the baptists, the seventh day adventists, the christadelphians, the way or any other non-denomnational group. What about the catholics, lutherans, episcopalians, methodists, etc?" Well, I'd say, if you feel that these are better at following the bible, then you need to hook up with them ASAP and be a REAL Christian (if that's what these are and I'm not the ultimate judge) otherwise you're not a Christian, because you absolutely need to be attached to a congregation to be one.

Imagine yourself living at the end of the 1st and the beginning of the second century and you were in one of the seven congregations. Imagine the letter was read to you how Jesus viewed your congregation. You also got to hear what he had to say about the other congregations. If you thought the others were getting a better report, would you abandon your congregation to move to the one with the better report, or would you have stayed and helped to improve it? Or would you have abandoned the project of being a Christian entirely imagining wrongly that you could go it alone. "It's just me, Jesus and Jehovah against the world of darkness out there!", you might imagine to yourself. (and you'd be wrong).
You simply cannot be a Christian by yourself. You need the perpetual annoyances of the congregation to live up to the requirements. Oh, you might say to yourself "What about the baptists, the seventh day adventists, the christadelphians, the way or any other non-denomnational group. What about the catholics, lutherans, episcopalians, methodists, etc?" Well, I'd say, if you feel that these are better at following the bible, then you need to hook up with them ASAP and be a REAL Christian (if that's what these are and I'm not the ultimate judge) otherwise you're not a Christian, because you absolutely need to be attached to a congregation to be one.

Not a chance. (unfortunately)
When you drift away, sometimes. When you stomp your feet leaving the sheepfold, less often. When you thereafter turn your flamethrower upon it….

You can't do that if you aren't attached to some kind of congregation. The scriptures are absolutely clear on this. You can dispute WHICH congregation of people who consider themselves Christians you should be attached to, but you can't avoid the attachment. Not if you are a TRUE Christian. A person in regular attendance at a baptist church imagining Jesus is part of a trinity is closer to the truth than an EX-JW who imagines he can go it alone.

Imagine yourself living at the end of the 1st and the beginning of the second century and you were in one of the seven congregations. Imagine the letter was read to you how Jesus viewed your congregation. You also got to hear what he had to say about the other congregations. If you thought the others were getting a better report, would you abandon your congregation to move to the one with the better report, or would you have stayed and helped to improve it? Or would you have abandoned the project of being a Christian entirely imagining wrongly that you could go it alone. "It's just me, Jesus and Jehovah against the world of darkness out there!", you might imagine to yourself. (and you'd be wrong).
You simply cannot be a Christian by yourself. You need the perpetual annoyances of the congregation to live up to the requirements. Oh, you might say to yourself "What about the baptists, the seventh day adventists, the christadelphians, the way or any other non-denomnational group. What about the catholics, lutherans, episcopalians, methodists, etc?" Well, I'd say, if you feel that these are better at following the bible, then you need to hook up with them ASAP and be a REAL Christian (if that's what these are and I'm not the ultimate judge) otherwise you're not a Christian, because you absolutely need to be attached to a congregation to be one.

Imagine yourself living at the end of the 1st and the beginning of the second century and you were in one of the seven congregations. Imagine the letter was read to you how Jesus viewed your congregation. You also got to hear what he had to say about the other congregations. If you thought the others were getting a better report, would you abandon your congregation to move to the one with the better report, or would you have stayed and helped to improve it? Or would you have abandoned the project of being a Christian entirely imagining wrongly that you could go it alone. "It's just me, Jesus and Jehovah against the world of darkness out there!", you might imagine to yourself. (and you'd be wrong).
You simply cannot be a Christian by yourself. You need the perpetual annoyances of the congregation to live up to the requirements. Oh, you might say to yourself "What about the baptists, the seventh day adventists, the christadelphians, the way or any other non-denomnational group. What about the catholics, lutherans, episcopalians, methodists, etc?" Well, I'd say, if you feel that these are better at following the bible, then you need to hook up with them ASAP and be a REAL Christian (if that's what these are and I'm not the ultimate judge) otherwise you're not a Christian, because you absolutely need to be attached to a congregation to be one.

It hardly matters, does it? You can fart all you want and as along as there is plenty of space between you and your neighbor, there are no real consequences. But when population, technology, and competition for resources bring people shoulders to shoulder, your unpleasant ways provoke strong reaction.
So it is with the world today. At any time, applying godly wisdom would have been beneficial. In our time it become crucial.