You know the old adage, “It’ll probably get worse before it gets better”? Oh, and this one: “It’s always darkest before the dawn” and, meanwhile, that coal-black night seems to go on for eons? Exodus 5 in my morning reading. If you didn’t know God was faithful, you might think

He liked getting you into trouble. Moses has returned to Egypt. Aaron’s reintroduced the former prince to the Israelite elders. Told them God has seen their misery. Moses performed a few signs. They’re bought in and bowed low in worship by the end of Exodus 4. Then Moses & Aaron
go to Pharaoh with the Lord’s message: “Let my people go.”
No. “Please.” Nope. Can’t lose my labor force. So Pharaoh commands overseers to drastically increase the Israelites’ workload without changing their daily quota. When they can’t fill it, the Israelite foremen are beaten.
The Israelite foremen go to Pharaoh & cry out for help. He says, “You are nothing but slackers! Now get to work!” So they do what you know they are going to do and do not blame them for doing and know you would do it, too. They go to Moses and Aaron. “What have you done to us?!?”
Moses then goes to the Lord. “What have you done to them??And why did you ever send me?? Nothing but trouble has happened since we did what you said. “AND,” Moses cries, “You haven’t rescued your people at all!”

It’ll be that way sometimes. It’ll get worse before it gets better.
It’ll seem like God’s trying to get you in trouble. We have this erroneous idea that obedience leads to instant breakthrough. Beautifully, it can on occasion if that’s the way the Lord times it. But far more frequently, obedience either seems to make little immediate difference
OR makes things temporarily worse. A little flicker of divine promise had come earlier-on to Moses and Aaron and, of all things, from Pharaoh’s own mouth. When they first went to him with the Lord’s message, “Let my people go,” he’d unknowingly responded with the Lord’s promise:
“Look, the people of the land are so numerous & you would stop them from their labor.” Read that 1st part again. “Look, the people of the land are so numerous.” Genesis 15:5, God to childless, heirless Abraham. “Look at the sky and count the stars, if you are able to count them.
Your offspring will be that numerous.” Sometimes, if you’re really paying attention, if you’ll really listen, you will hear keywords, brow-raising words, from unsuspecting people in your waiting that are reminders of God’s great faithfulness. A glimpse ahead at Exodus 6 to close.
God hears Moses’s complaint and replies to him, “You will see what I will do...I AM THE LORD.”

Yes, he is.

THE LORD. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Moses, Aaron & the Israelites. The God of us.

He cannot be unfaithful.
He cannot lie.
He is the Lord.
Worthy of our trust. Worthy of our obedience. Worthy of our faithful waiting and burdensome working and relentless praying until that dark night finally turns to dawn.

This is the crisis of faith: when, for just a little while, it seems that you did what God said but He didn’t.
He is the Lord. He will not only prove faithful. When he’s done what he intended to do, his goodness will put you face-to-the-floor. But he will do it in such a way that there’s no boasting in human flesh. Just worship from our lips. Wait and work, Loved of God. He is still Lord.

More from Beth Moore

More from Book

It has been exactly 3 years to "how fund managers .." was released. The book took a lot of time to write. Here is a short thread about how it happened ..


2/n the idea came from @kan_writersside who got me in touch with Dibakar Ghosh at @Rupa_Books .. we discussed the idea that it has been 2 decades to the fund management industry and it deserves a book. A lot was written about about Bharat Shah, Prashant Jain and S.Arora..

3/n but there was not much information about investment philosophies and the overall environment of the mid 90s and later on. Kanishk and Dibakar wanted a broader book for everyone and not just the stock market reader. We went to work

4/n we decided to write about the dotcom boom and bust where it all started. The start fund managers came from there. In Feb 2000 IT index had a pe multiple of 420 and the market cap of the sector was 34% of the market. Banks were 5% and some analysts were still bullish

5/n prashant Jain was one of the few fund managers who was out of the sector in November itself and was quietly watching the index go up. There were others but the legend of Jain was at the top of the mind because it is believed he refused to meet the CFO of a big IT company ..
दोन वर्षांपूर्वी जेव्हा मी ‘लीन इन’ हे पुस्तक वाचले होते तेव्हा मला कधीच वाटले नव्हते की ह्या पुस्तकाचा माझ्यावर कायमचा परिणाम होईल.
“खरोखर समान जग असे आहे की जेथे महिलांनी आपले अर्धे देश आणि कंपन्या आणि पुरुषांनी अर्धी घरं चालवतील. “
- शेरिल सँडबर्ग.


अध्याय वाचताना मला जाणवलं की प्रत्येक महिला जिला तिच्या आवडीनिवडींशी कोणतीही तडजोड न करता स्वत: चे करियर बनवायचे आहे, तिच्यासाठी हा manifesto आहे. या वास्तववादी पुस्तकाची लेखिका शेरिल सँडबर्ग आहे. प्रामाणिक बोलं तर मी त्यावेळी तिचं नाव कधीच ऐकले नव्हते.


काही खुलासे करणारे तथ्य शोधल्यानंतर मी तिच्या संदर्भात अधिक माहितीसाठी थोडा इंटरनेट सर्फ केलं. हार्वर्डमधून इकॉनॉमिक्सची पदवी घेतली व पदवी पूर्ण झाल्यावर तिला कॉलेजमध्ये वुमन इन इकॉनॉमिक्स नावाची एक संस्था स्थापित केली. एका वर्षासाठी वर्ल्ड बँकेत काम केले आणि कुष्ठरोगास आळा


घालण्याच्या एका कार्यक्रमाअंतर्गत त्यांनी भारतातही प्रवास केला. नंतर हार्वर्ड येथे एमबीए केले आणि वर्षभर मॅककिन्से आणि कंपनीबरोबर काम केले. माझ्यासारख्या भारतीय महिलेसाठी, तिने आपल्या पुस्तकात लिहून दिलेल्या कामाच्या ठिकाणी महिलांच्या वागणुकीच्या साध्या साध्या निरीक्षणाद्वारे

निश्चितच एक आदर्श म्हणून काम केले. मला वैयक्तिकरित्या कळले की पुस्तकात नोंदवलेल्या बर्‍याच अज्ञात, नकळत वर्तन तथ्य सत्य आहेत. त्यापैकी काहींचा समावेश आहे की महिला ज्या प्रकल्पात काम करतात त्या कोणत्याही प्रकल्पात पुढाकार अर्थात initiative घेत नाहीत,
We had a conversation on the podcast about the racialization of dog breeds, where we talked to @BronwenDickey, the author of Pitbull: The Battle Over an American Icon.


In the 1930s, Pitbulls — which, as Bronwen pointed out to me over and over, don’t constitute a dog breed but a shape — used to be seen as the trusty sidekick of the proletariat, the Honda Civic of canines. (Think of “the Little Rascals” dog.)
.

That began changing in the postwar years and the rise of the suburbs. A pedigreed dog became a status symbol for the burgeoning white middle class. And pitbulls got left behind in the cities.

Aside: USians have flitted between different “dangerous” breeds and media-fueled panics around specific dogs. (anti-German xenophobia in the late 1800s fueled extermination programs of the spitz, a little German dog that newspapers said was vicious and spread disease.)

Some previously “dangerous” dogs get rebranded over the years — German shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers. But the thing their respective periods of contempt and concern had to do is that they were associated with some contemporarily undesirable group.

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x