text:
Category Archives: Creation Questions
Questions about Creation: Were Adam and Eve Saved? How Many Children Did Adam and Eve Have? When Were Adam and Eve Created?
Were Adam and Eve saved? The Bible does not specifically tell us whether Adam and Eve were saved. Adam and Eve were the only two human beings who knew about God before they became tainted with sin. As a result, they likely still knew God better after their fall than any of us do today. Adam and Eve most definitely believed in and depended on God. God continued to talk with Adam and Eve and provide for them after the fall. Adam and Eve knew of God's promise that He would provide a Savior (Genesis 3:15). God made garments of skin for Adam and Eve after the fall (Genesis 3:21). Many scholars understand this as the first animal sacrifice, foreshadowing the eventual death of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world. Putting these facts together, it would seem that Adam and Eve were saved and did indeed go to heaven / paradise when they died.
How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.
When were Adam and Eve created? If Old Testament history and the ages in Genesis chapter 5 are traced, Adam and Eve were likely created in approximately 4000 B.C.
Were Adam and Eve cavemen? Genesis chapter 3 records Adam and Eve having a fully intelligent conversation with God. Adam and Eve were surely "primitive" in their understanding of many concepts, but they were not "ape-like" or intellectually deficient by any means. Adam and Eve were the most perfect human beings in the history of the world.
How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before they sinned? The Bible does not explicitly tell us how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before they sinned. It seems as if they were in the Garden for a short amount of time, possibly as little as a day or two. Adam and Eve did not conceive any children until after the Fall (Genesis 4:1–2), so it is unlikely they were in the Garden for very long.
Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons / navels? A bellybutton is formed by the umbilical cord that connects a baby in the womb to its mother. Adam and Eve were created directly by God, and did not go through the normal birthing process. So, Adam and Eve would probably not have had bellybuttons.[1]
[1] Got Questions Ministries. (2010). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on October 3, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Is the Meaning of the Tree of Life?
The tree of life, referred to in Genesis, is the symbol of God's provision for immortality in the Garden of Eden. Of all the trees that were in the Garden of Eden, two were named for their great importance, but just as one—the tree of life—was a blessing to Adam and Eve, the other was to become a curse for all of their posterity. "And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 2:9).
The Lord told Adam that he was free to eat the fruit of any tree in the Garden, except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for by doing so he would surely die (Genesis 3:16–17). The tree of life was provided to be continuous reminder that immortality was a consequence of obedience. As long as Adam and Eve were obedient and did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they had access to the tree of life. Once they sinned, they were driven from the Garden, and God placed an angel with a flaming sword to guard the tree of life so they would no longer have access to it. Eternal life was now no longer theirs. Just as God had warned, they died, and through Adam all men after him would die (Romans 5:12).
By barring access to the tree of life, God showed compassion in His omniscience. Knowing that because of sin, life would be filled with sorrow and toil, He graciously limited the number of years men would live. To live eternally in a sinful state with its results—pain, disease, heartache, toil, and grief—would mean endless agony for humanity, with no hope of the relief that comes with death. By limiting our lifespan, God gives us enough time to come to know Him and His provision for eternal life through Christ, but spares us the misery of an endless existence in a sinful condition.
Because God knew that Adam would fail the conditions of his immortality, He provided for One who would redeem fallen mankind. Through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, but through another Man, Jesus Christ, redemption through the forgiveness of sin is available to all (Romans 5:17). Those who avail themselves of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross will see the tree of life again, for it stands in the middle of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2, 22:1–2). Its water is the constant flow of everlasting life from God's throne to God's people.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on September 17, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: Whom Was Cain Afraid of after He Killed Abel?
In Genesis 4:13–14, shortly after he killed his brother Abel, "Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.' " Whom exactly was Cain afraid of? The only people the book of Genesis had mentioned to this point are Adam and Eve (Cain's parents) and Abel (who was now dead). Who would possibly be a threat to Cain?
It is important to recognize that Cain and Abel were both full-grown adults at the time that Cain killed Abel. Both Cain and Abel were farmers, who tended to their own lands and flocks (Genesis 4:2–4). The Bible does not tell us how old Cain and Abel were, but they very likely could have been in their 30's or 40's. The Bible does not specifically mention Adam and Eve having any children between Abel and Seth (Genesis 4:25). However, it is highly unlikely that the two most perfect human beings in the history of the world, Adam and Eve, would not have any children over several decades. Adam and Eve had many children after Seth (Genesis 5:4), so why would they not also have had other children between Abel and Seth? The Bible does not say that Seth was Adam and Eve's first child, or even first son, after Abel was killed. Rather, it states that Seth was born as a "replacement" for Abel. Genesis chapter 5 traces the genealogy of Seth. Prior to his death, Abel was likely the "chosen" son that would eventually produce the Messiah (Genesis 3:15). It is in this sense that Seth "replaced" Abel.
So, whom was Cain afraid of? Cain was afraid of his own brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces, who were already born and would be capable of seeking revenge. The fact that Cain had a wife (Genesis 4:17) is a further evidence that Adam and Eve had other children after Cain and Abel, but before Seth.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on September 2, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: Would the Discovery of Noah's Ark Be Important?
There have been numerous claimed discoveries of Noah's Ark in recent years. The discoveries have been in various locations, ranging from Mount Ararat in Turkey, to a mountain range in Iran, to an entirely different location on Mount Ararat (with a visitors' center). It is not the purpose of this article to evaluate whether or not the Noah's Ark discovery claims are legitimate. Rather, the question at hand is, if Noah's Ark was discovered, would that be significant? Would the discovery of Noah's Ark cause people to turn to God in faith?
The discovery of a boat-like structure in the mountains of the Middle East, carbon-dated to approximately the time of the biblical account of Noah's Ark (2500 B.C), with evidence of animal life once having been aboard would surely be a tremendous discovery. For those who believe in God and trust in the Bible as His inspired Word, it would be powerful confirmation that the Bible is true and that early human history occurred precisely as the Bible describes it. A verified discovery of Noah's Ark would likely cause many seekers and open-minded skeptics to at least re-evaluate their beliefs. For the close-minded critic and hardened atheist, however, the discovery of Noah's Ark would not make one bit of a difference.
Romans 1:19–20 declares, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (ESV). If a person is rejecting the clear evidence of God in the universe, no biblically related discovery would change his/her mind. Similarly, in Luke 16:31, Jesus declares, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." No discovery, no argument, and no miracle will change the mind of a person who has been blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4) and is, with a hard heart and closed mind, rejecting the light of the Gospel.
Conversely, would it matter if Noah's Ark is never discovered? No, it would not matter because the Christian faith is not built on every biblical account being explicitly/conclusively proven. The Christian faith is built on faith. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). With that in mind, though, there are two primary explanations for why Noah's Ark might never be discovered. First, the wood of the Ark would have been very valuable post-Flood. Noah and his family would have needed wood to build their homes. It is possible that Noah and his family, or their descendants, deconstructed the Ark and used its wood for other purposes. Second, even if Noah and his family left the Ark intact, approximately 4500 years have passed (if the biblical account is interpreted strictly literally). A wooden structure exposed to harsh elements for 4500 years would, for the most part, decompose/decay into virtual nothingness.
While the discovery of Noah's Ark would be a tremendous and powerful archaeological find, it will never be something Christians should place their faith in. The discovery of Noah's Ark, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Garden of Eden, or any other biblical artifact will not prove the Christian faith and will not change the mind of anyone whom God is not drawing (John 6:44). "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on August 15, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Was the Firmament in the Bible?
The "firmament" (from the Latin firmamentum, meaning "sky" or "expanse") is mentioned 17 times in the King James Version of the Bible and refers to the expanse of the heavens above the earth.
Nine of the occurrences of firmament are in the first chapter of the Bible as part of the creation account. Genesis 1:6–8 says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." The "firmament" is called "heaven"; i.e., it is what people see when they stand outside and look up. It is the space which includes the earth's atmosphere and the celestial realm. In the firmament, we see the sun, moon, and stars; in modern translations the firmament is often called the "expanse" or the "sky."
Genesis says that the firmament "separated the water under the expanse from the water above it" (Genesis 1:7). Originally, God created the earth with water "under" the sky (terrestrial and subterranean water) and water "above" the sky—possibly a "water canopy" which enwrapped the earth in a protective layer. Or, the waters above the firmament could simply be a reference to clouds.
We find firmament used again in Psalms: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalm 19:1). Also, in Psalm 150:1, "Praise ye the LORD.… Praise him in the firmament of his power."
Firmament is used in only two other books of the Bible: Ezekiel (five times) and Daniel (once). In Ezekiel, each occurrence takes place within a vision. For example, "Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne" (Ezekiel 10:1).
Daniel 12:3 says, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."
In short, the "firmament" is a vast expanse, specifically the atmosphere or sky. The word is found only in the King James Version and other older translations of the Bible.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on July 30, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Is the Definition of Darwinism?
In 1860 Thomas Henry Huxley introduced the term Darwinism in relation to Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, published the year before. Darwin's book presented natural selection as the means of biological evolution, as seen in the full title, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwinism, then, is correctly understood as the body of theory dealing with biological evolution in general and evolution by natural selection in particular.
In 1864 the philosopher Herbert Spencer summed up Darwinism with the phrase "survival of the fittest." Darwin approved of this summation as an accurate and convenient expression of his basic theory. The concept of survival of the fittest was challenged by Henry Drummond of the Scottish Free Church, who pointed out that even in the animal world survival is not simply a matter of stealth and strength. Care and compassion also play an important role.
Charles Darwin published a second book on evolution in 1871, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. In it he theorized that nature itself determined the development and progress of all living things. The implication was that any man-centered or God-centered view of the world is merely wishful thinking.
Darwinism has been applied to areas other than biology. "Social Darwinism," for example, is the application of the Darwinian principle of struggle to the struggle for dominance within society; from this emerged the "science" of eugenics. By the end of the 1950s, the term Darwinism had been updated to incorporate natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics. Historians often use the term Darwinism to differentiate Darwin's theory from other evolutionary theories that existed around the same time.
The modern scientific community uses the term Darwinism to distinguish Darwin's original theories from modern evolutionary theories (sometimes called "neo-Darwinism"). Scientists today do not rely solely on Darwin's original ideas with regard to modern biology.
Some creationists misuse the term Darwinism by applying it to atheistic evolution in general. Technically, Darwinism has no connection with cosmic evolution, the Big Bang theory, or the origin of life, per se. Biological Darwinism does not deal with how life started, only with how life progressed and diversified.[1]
Questions about Creation: What Was the Purpose of the Flood in the Time of Noah?
Genesis 6 gives the sad account of the state of humanity prior to the worldwide flood during the days of Noah. Genesis 6:5 states, "The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." The level of sin and corruption among the human population was staggering: people thought about doing evil "all the time." For the strong and healthy individual, an evil lifestyle would have ramifications evidenced by disease and death. But the weak or unhealthy (babies, children, women, and the disabled) would have been immediately put in harm's way by the evil actions of others.
In addition, "The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (Genesis 6:2). In the Hebrew language, these "sons of God" were "bene elohim." This term is usually applied to angels (see Job 1:6). Genesis seems to be stating that, somehow, there was a physical union between angels and human women. The unnatural offspring of this union were the "Nephilim" (Genesis 6:4). The word Nephilim is directly transliterated from the Hebrew. The ancient root of the word implies a "fall." Whatever the word actually means (in some versions of the Bible it is translated as "giants"), Scripture describes the Nephilim as "the heroes of old, men of renown." Some theologians believe that God could simply not allow this corrupt offspring to exist on the earth, and that was part of the reason for the flood.
What can be understood without question is that the world that was then, the world of Noah, was incredibly corrupt and perverted. Genesis 6:6 tells us that "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." The Lord's "regret" is unlike ours. Creating mankind in the image of God was not a "mistake" on the part of the Lord. The Hebrew word nahem can also be translated "grieved." The depraved actions of mankind grieved God in His most holy heart.
God responded to man's sin in a holy and righteous manner, but also in a way that salvaged mankind. "So the LORD said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD" (Genesis 6:7, 8). Yes, all people on earth died except the eight people who were found righteous in the eyes of God: Noah, Noah's wife, and Noah's three sons and their wives. Scripture indicates that Noah testified to the world about the coming flood for 120 years. The people who perished in the flood died because they refused to acknowledge God or seek His forgiveness. Noah, on the other hand, is described as righteous, blameless, and obedient in that he "walked with God" (Genesis 6:9).
Noah and his family became our ancestors. None of us descend from the Nephilim or the unrighteous line of Cain (since Noah descended from Seth). The polluted, unrighteous population of the world of Noah disappeared from the earth. Mankind was salvaged, and from the line of righteous Noah came the Son of Man, Jesus Christ our Lord, who died to save those who call upon His name.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on June 24, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Is the Age of the Universe?
In Genesis 1:1, we are told that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Bible gives no date for the creation; the only hint is that it happened "in the beginning." In Hebrew, the word for "beginning" isbereshith, meaning literally "head."
All Christians agree that God created the universe. Where Christians have a difference of opinion is in the interpretation of the wordday (Hebrewyom) in Genesis chapter 1. Those who hold to a literal, twenty-four-hour "day" believe in a young earth; those who hold to a non-literal, poetic "day" believe in a much older earth.
Many scholars and Christian scientists believe the worddayin Genesis refers to a literal, twenty-four-hour day. This would explain the repetition throughout Genesis 1 of the statement "and there was evening, and there was morning." One evening and one morning make up one day (in Jewish reckoning, a new day begins at sunset). Others point to the non-literal use of the word "day" elsewhere in Scripture, i.e., "thedayof the Lord," and argue that evening to morning does not equal a day, and should instead be understood as figuratively referring to beginnings and endings of periods of time.
If the genealogies in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 and the rest of Old Testament history are interpreted strictly literally, the creation of Adam can be dated to approximately 4000 BC. But this would only date the creation of Adam, not necessarily the creation of the earth, let alone the universe. There is also the possibility of "gaps" of time in the narrative of Genesis 1.
All that to say, the Bible does not explicitly give the age of the universe. Got Questions Ministries takes the position of a young earth and believes that literal twenty-four-hour days in Genesis 1 is the better interpretation. At the same time, we do not have serious disagreements with the idea that the earth and the universe might be significantly older than 6,000 years. Whether the differences are explained by gaps or by God creating the universe with the "appearance of age" or by some other factor—a universe older than 6,000 years does not cause significant biblical or theological problems.
Ultimately, however, the age of the universe cannot be proved from Scripture or from science. Whether the cosmos is 6,000 years old or billions of years old, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. It is always wise to question the motives of those who argue the earth must be billions of years old, especially since the Bible does not appear to support such a presupposition.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on June 7, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Are the Laws of Thermodynamics and How Do They Provide Evidence for Creationism?
The laws of thermodynamics are concerned with heat, mechanical energy and the conversion between the two. All physical, biological and chemical processes known to man are subject to these two laws.
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the conservation of energy, states, "Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists." In other words, even if matter is converted to energy and vice versa, there will never be an increase or decrease in the total amount.
So the question is, if matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, then where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from? Either the universe (a) somehow came into existence without God, even though science has proved that it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing, or (b) everything always existed in the universe, which science has also proved impossible, or (c) God created it. The most reasonable and plausible explanation is that God created the universe and everything in it.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease: "Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work." Author and scientist Isaac Asimov explained, "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!… All we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about." In other words, over time, everything tends toward disorder, randomness, and disorganization.
Evolution demands that every physical system, from the atomic level on up, is the result of a spontaneous and increasingly complex and well-ordered process of assembly. Darwin suggested that living organisms, for instance, came about via a long string of infinitely complex, yet random, evolutionary processes. Such progression, however, would be in complete violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The trend, according to these physical laws, is that entropy is increasing, and thus natural processes must be breaking down, not building up (or evolving into something more complicated).
Simple observation empirically confirms the truth of the second law of thermodynamics. Paint on a house chips and peels. Dust builds up. The house itself falls into disrepair if preventative steps are not taken. Living things that die rot and decompose. We can see the results of the second law of thermodynamics before our very eyes every day.
Clearly, the simplest, most reasonable explanation of the laws of physics is creation. The Bible affirms creation by the one true God in the book of Genesis. So why do some believe in evolution rather than creationism? Psalm 14:1 sums it up: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' "[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on May 23, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: If Adam and Eve Hadn't Sinned, Introducing Death into Creation, Wouldn't the World Have Gotten Overpopulated?
When God first created Adam and Eve, when they were still in the Garden of Eden, He charged them to be "fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28). When He cursed Eve in Genesis 3:16, He told her He would greatly multiply pain in childbirth. Both passages imply that it would have been possible for Adam and Eve to have children in Eden (although there is no indication they did). If death had not entered the world, and if all of Adam and Eve's descendants had followed God's admonishment, eventually, the world would have been filled. But would it have been overpopulated?
This is one of those questions that usually come from a deeply entrenched modern mindset. Fear of pollution and famine and unemployment permeates our world. Almost one third of our land mass is desert. It is very likely that, in our world, if fertility rates were untainted by sin, and if no one ever died, the world would indeed become overpopulated.
However, the question does not concern Adam and Eve in a fallen world but in a perfect, sinless world—a creation imbued both with eloquent natural law and God's miraculous power. Imagine an unfallen world with no desert, no wilderness, no unproductive land at all. Imagine a sinless creation producing many times more than our fallen world ever could. Imagine unfallen, sinless man wisely overseeing the earth's resources and living in a charitable harmony with each other. Such a world would be completely foreign to us.
Eventually, however, the perfect, sinless world would have been filled. What then? To assume that an unfallen world could slide into something less than ideal is to doubt God's sovereignty and creative power. He told Adam and Eve to fill the earth, and He would have had a plan once that was accomplished. Perhaps He would have simply stopped births. Or allowed the people to colonize other planets. Or just made Earth bigger.
If we believe God is perfect and sovereign and all-powerful, we have to believe He had a plan, and that it was sufficient to accommodate the number of people His plan called for. After all, He Himself said that His creation, including the charge to fill the earth, was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on March 13, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Is the Meaning of Pishon in the Bible?
The only mention of the word Pishon in the Bible is found in the book of Genesis: "A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there" (Genesis 2:10–12). It's only when we compare the richness and beauty of the river to that of the Garden of Eden itself, that we are really able to discern the meaning of Pishon.
Besides the lone biblical reference, Pishon is mentioned in Sirach 24:25 of the Apocrypha. It is probably connected with the Hebrew root puwsh, which means "scatter, press on, break loose, or spring forward." The River Pishon most likely originated from a spring and formed a delta. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names defines Pishon as "Great Diffusion."
It is virtually impossible to determine where the Pishon River flowed during the pre-Flood era. The same is true for practically any location during that time, including Eden. Some scientists believe that the Pishon could be the Nile, the Indus, or the Ganges. There is simply no modern river that matches the description given in Genesis. Without question, the world's topography prior to the worldwide Flood (Genesis 6:17) was totally different from what it is today.
Although Pishon's location is obscure, its description and purpose are not. The Garden of Eden which God prepared was not only bountiful, it was lush and beautiful. It was a place rich with life-giving water, a land lavished with precious metals and jewels. The gold and onyx associated with the River Pishon are reminiscent of the tabernacle's furnishings and priestly garments (Exodus 25:1–9; 1 Chronicles 29:2). Gold overlay finished the sacred furniture of the tabernacle (Exodus 25:11). Particularly important was the onyx stone of the priestly ephod, upon which were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes (Exodus 28:9–14), and the onyx of the high priest's breastplate (Exodus 28:20).
The land of Havilah, ringed by the Pishon, is indicative of the presence and blessing of God. Furthermore, the Pishon and the other three rivers from Eden eventually marked the boundaries of the land pledged to Abraham (Genesis 15:18). As God had prepared and assigned Eden to Adam's care, the "paradise" of Canaan's land was given to Abraham and his descendants.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on February 20, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What/Where Was the Land of Nod in the Bible?
The land of Nod was where Cain settled after he was punished by God for the murder of his brother, Abel (Genesis 4:8). The Bible reads, "Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden" (Genesis 4:16). No one knows where the land of Nod was located, only that it was east of Eden. The Bible does not mention the land of Nod again.
Cain's settling "east of Eden" implies that he was further removed from the garden than Adam and Eve were. His fate was to live the life of an outsider. The fact that Cain left God's presence suggests that he lived the rest of his life alienated from God.
The word Nod, in Hebrew, means "wanderer, exile or fugitive." This corresponds to God's word to Cain that he would "be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth" (Genesis 4:12). Some Bible scholars have suggested that Nod is not an actual place; rather, the Bible simply means that, wherever Cain went, it could be called the "Land of the Wanderer."
Though God had driven Cain from his home, it was Cain's choice to live outside the presence of God. Essentially, Cain's punishment in becoming a wanderer and a fugitive was to lose all sense of belonging and identification with a community. Living in the "land of Nod," Cain lived without roots in isolation. For his sin, Cain was made a castaway and later became a godless, hollow person "in the land of Nod." Upon separating himself from God, Cain built a society totally detached from God. The Bible tells us that the children of Cain followed in his path and established a godless civilization (Genesis 4:16–24).[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on February 6, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: Does the String Theory Have Any Connection with Belief in God?
In short, the relationship between string theory and God can be stated this way: If string theory is true, then God created it. That is the only definitive statement we can deduce from the Bible about string theory. The Bible doesn't mention whether God used atoms or elements or quarks or eleven dimensions and tiny strings of vibrating energy. All it says is that God made the world (Genesis 1).
Some, however, try to use string theory to learn more about God—not about His character, but His location. God is not confined to the three spatial dimensions and one time dimension that we are (Isaiah 40:22). Heaven does not exist in a space that we can see, and God is outside of time. Some have taken this to mean that if we can't see God, and if we can't see most of the dimensions involved in string theory, then maybe God lives on those dimensions. The biggest problem with this theory is that it still places God inside the particular cosmos that was created for mankind. According to the latest version of string theory, all eleven dimensions (time, the three spatial dimensions, and seven others that are too condensed to see) are necessary for the universe as we know it. If that is the case, then all eleven dimensions are things God created, not places where God is confined.
Thinking about God living in eleven dimensions and interacting with the four we have access to is an interesting mental exercise. It might explain why we can't see Him—an observer living in four dimensions cannot see all of an eleven-dimensional form, although ultimately God cannot be seen because He has chosen to be seen only through the eyes of faith (Hebrews 11:1). If string theory is true, it also might show how He can interact with the world in ways that we can't describe—and thus call "miracles." And, if God can move freely through all eleven dimensions, it would illustrate how He can be "outside" of time. For Him, leaving the confines of time would be no more difficult than if we were to leave the two-dimensional plane of the street and fall down through a manhole.
Ultimately, we don't know. Scientists are just beginning to try to explain string theory—a theory that isn't even testable or observable and, therefore, is not yet even considered legitimate science. If string theory is true, then God created it. If it's not, it's at least an interesting metaphor in our attempt to understand God and how He works in creation. "And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?" (Job 26:14).[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on January 23, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: How Does Young Earth Creationism Handle the Evidence for Millions of Years in the Fossil Record?
The "fossil record" is a term used by paleontologists to refer to the total number of fossils that have been discovered, as well as to the information derived from them. The problem with interpreting the fossil record is that most paleontologists also subscribe to the theory of evolution. They interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory, which is not a surprise considering the starting point. Creationists, on the other hand, ascribe to the biblical account of creation. How, then, do creationists interpret the fossil record?
To answer this question, we need to begin with the premise that it is impossible for the Bible to contradict true science as God is the author of both. When a fallible human scientist's interpretation of a finding does not correspond with the clear teaching of the biblical texts, we should never reinterpret the Bible, as God's written Word is the final authority in all matters that it addresses. Yet that is what many in the church, as well as others in the Christian community, have been doing for far too long—reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate scientific findings. Consequently, we see a continual erosion of faith in the authority of Scripture.
Clearly, the many contributions made by the scientific community are staggering indeed. In one way or another everyone undeniably has benefited from their research and technological discoveries. However, the fields of paleontology and fossilology are highly prone to error. In the last century we have witnessed countless examples of "ground-breaking" discoveries that have ultimately been proven wrong. Recall, for example, the Coelacanth. Declared extinct for about 70 million years, this fish was thought by scientists to have been the fish that first walked out of the ocean on its way to becoming the ascendant of modern man. One can only imagine the disappointment in the scientific community when a fisherman caught one off the island of Madagascar in 1938. No lungs, no legs. Interestingly, many evolutionists believed the reason this fish disappeared from the fossil record is because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods. And here they are, still swimming in and around the Indian Ocean. No lungs, no legs. Yet how many fossils were dated to be roughly 70 million years old simply because their fossilized remains were found in the same strata as the fossilized remains of the "70 million-year-old" coelacanth. This is one example why using the geologic timescale to date the age of the Earth does not work.
Next, recall the "Nebraska Man" debacle. In the early 1920's a scientist found one single tooth from which he was, amazingly, able to draw an entire picture of what this particular "ape-man" looked like. The scientific community was ecstatic. In fact, this tooth was used in the 1925 Scopes trial as proof for human evolution. Two years later, however, other parts of this very same "Nebraska Man's" skeleton were found. It was determined that "Nebraska Man" was actually an extinct wild pig!
The vast majority of these discoveries come from a worldview that excludes God, the author, creator, and sustainer of life. Any scientific findings, at least those relative to God's creation, made outside the purview of a Christian worldview are suspect from the onset. As the principal methods for dating the fossils and rocks begin with a pre-suppositional paradigm that entails some form of evolution, its findings will often make sense biblically only if we alter Scripture to make them fit. The truth is that our vast fossil record is and always has been compatible with the global flood which God used to send judgment on the Earth. The flood was a violent geologic upheaval with enormous destructive power that not only destroyed all land-dwelling, air-breathing life (Genesis 9:21–23) but also changed the landscape of the entire planet. And the tens of millions of marine fossils found inland on practically every continent certainly dispels the notion of this deluge being "local," as some have argued.
Now, here is what we do know. Fossils represent death. And we further know that sin and then death came about as a result of Adam's disobedience, "just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12). Now, there is some discussion as to whether or not there was plant and animal death before Adam's sin. However, that debate can be laid to rest when we consider that the last creative work of God was the making of man (Genesis 1:27). And when God finished His work and looked at "all that He had made" He deemed it all to be "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Now, as numerous fossil discoveries have clearly revealed violence and sickness and disease and even cancer, how possibly could our great and perfect Creator have declared a world filled with such abundant sickness, grief and "frustration" (see Romans 8:20) to be "very good"?
We further know that Jesus Christ told us Adam was made at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6), and the genealogical lines given to us in Genesis 5 and 11 reveal the Earth to be roughly 6,000 years old. Accordingly, we can say with God-given confidence that the vast and abundant fossil record we have today was laid down within the last 6,000 years. Indeed, every fossil ever found, then, must have begun the fossilization process after Adam's sin introduced death and decay into our world. Now, of course the secular scientists would certainly deny this, but keep in mind they, for the most part, deny the occurrence of the biblical flood, even though God spent more time talking about it than He did in talking about the creation of the world or the fall of man.
Those who abide in the truth of God's inerrant Word are not the ones who need a paradigm shift. Nonetheless, the world will do its level best to shake us from our beliefs by teaching that truth is only knowable through the changing concepts of science. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon said in 1877: "… You and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mold our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this!"[1]
Questions about Creation: What Is the Day-Age Theory?
Although Moses wrote the book of Genesis approximately thirty-four hundred years ago, it has been in just the last couple of centuries that serious debate over the nature and date of creation has developed. Consequently, there are now a number of theories relative to the creation account and one of them is called the Day-Age theory. Basically, this is a belief that the "days" spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are sequential periods and not literal 24-hour days. Each day, therefore is thought to represent a much longer, albeit undefined, period of time, such as a million or more years. Essentially, it is an attempt to harmonize Scripture with theistic evolution.
Science has never disproved one word of the Bible. Nevertheless, in the last century and a half the scientific community has done a remarkable job of indoctrinating us with their worldview, one that is very much opposed to the truth of Scripture. However, the truth is that the Bible is the supreme truth and it should be the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice-versa. At the very core of most of these contrived theories is an attempt to remove God from the equation. And one of the unfortunate consequences of questioning the historicity of Genesis is that the floodgates burst open for man to question every part of God's Word that does not agree with our limited intellectual abilities. However, everything Scripture teaches about sin and death requires a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. That being said, let's review some of the arguments made by the proponents of the Day-Age theory.
Adherents of this theory often point out that the word used for "day" in Hebrew, yom, sometimes refers to a period of time that is more than a literal twenty-four hour day. One scriptural passage in particular often looked upon in support of this theory is 2 Peter 3:8 where it says "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." However, as with all biblical interpretation, one must look at the context of the entire passage. In 2 Peter 3:3–10 we see that Peter is talking about scoffers in the last days as they question the second coming of Christ. This passage simply reminds us that God stands outside of time and we should not doubt the occurrence of a future biblical event simply because it seems to be taking a long time from our limited human perspective. Accordingly, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the length of the creation week, nor was it meant to turn "day" into a mathematical formula.
Each day in the first chapter of Genesis is described as having an evening and a morning. Indeed, these two words—evening and morning—are used extensively in the Old Testament and each time they refer to normal days. Moreover, outside Genesis yom is used with a number hundreds of times—i.e., "one day" and each time it means an ordinary day. If Moses wanted to convey a longer period of time he could have used either olam or qedem, in place of yom.
Another reason given for a metaphorical "day" as postulated by this theory is that with the sun not being made until day four, how could there have been ordinary days (i.e. day and night) before this? However, the sun is not needed for a day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating Earth. The "evening and morning" indicates a rotating Earth, and as far as light is concerned, recall that God's very first command was "Let there be light" and there was light (Genesis 1:3). Separating the light from the darkness was the very first thing our Creator did. Also, remember that in Revelation 21:23 we see that the New Jerusalem "does not need the sun or moon to shine on it" as the "glory of God" will provide the "light." At the beginning of creation, God's radiant light would have certainly been sufficient until the luminaries were created three days later.
Additionally, if the "days" of Genesis are really long periods of time such as millions or billions of years, then God's Word is completely undermined at its very foundation as we would then have disease, suffering and death before the fall of man, even though Scripture clearly indicates that "sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin" (Romans 5:12). Thus, it is clear that there was no death prior to Adam's act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. If this theory were true, it would nullify the doctrine of the fall of mankind into sin. Furthermore, it would also render void the doctrine of the Atonement, for if there was no "fall" why would we need a Redeemer?
Martin Luther once said: "But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are … since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish it to go." Instead of looking to science to tell us what God really meant, all we really need to do is study Scripture, daily and eagerly, just like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), as all of it was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), and all of it is true (Psalm 119:160).
Christ Himself spoke of the importance of believing in Moses' writings (John 5:45–47). And in Exodus 20:11, this is what Moses had to say: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on January 1, 2014 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: What Similarities Are There between the Gilgamesh Flood Account and Biblical Flood Account?
There are many similarities between the Gilgamesh flood account and biblical flood account (Genesis 6–8), beginning most importantly with God choosing a righteous man to build an ark because of an impending great flood. In both accounts, samples from all species of animals were to be on the ark, and birds were used after the rains to determine if flood waters had subsided anywhere to reveal dry land. There are other similarities are there between the Gilgamesh flood account and biblical flood account.
One major point of clear agreement is that a global flooding disaster occurred in ancient times. Portions of the Gilgamesh account (Chaldean Flood Tablets) have been found dating back to 2000 B.C. or earlier. Tablets containing the full story, however, date to approximately 650 B.C., or well after the Genesis account (c. 1450–1410 B.C.) These Chaldean tablets, from the city of Ur (modern day Southern Iraq), describe how the Babylonian God Ea decided to end all life except for the ark dwellers with a great flood. Ea, believed by the Babylonians to be the god who created the earth, selected Ut-Napishtim (or Utnapishtim) to construct a six-story square ark.
During the mid-nineteenth century, this complete "Epic of Gilgamesh" (from 650 B.C.) was unearthed in some ruins at Nineveh's great library, and the depth and breadth of similarities and differences became evident. Here is a more extensive listing of the similarities and differences:
• God (or several gods in the Gilgamesh account) decided to destroy humankind because of its wickedness and sinfulness (Genesis 6:5–7).
• A righteous man (Genesis 6:9) was directed to build an ark to save a limited and selected group of people and all species of animals (Noah received his orders directly from Jehovah God, Utnapishtim from a dream).
• Both arks were huge, although their shapes differed. Noah's was rectangular; Utnapishtim's was square.
• Both arks had a single door and at least one window.
• A great rain covered the land and mountains with water, although some water emerged from beneath the earth in the biblical account (Genesis 7:11).
• Biblical flooding was 40 days and nights (Genesis 7:12) while the Gilgamesh flood was much shorter (six days and nights).
• Birds were released to find land (a raven and three doves in the biblical account (Genesis 8:6–12); a dove, swallow, and raven in the other).
• After the rains ceased, both arks came to rest on a mountain, Noah's on Ararat (Genesis 8:4); Utnapishtim's on Nisir. These mountains are about 300 miles apart.
• Sacrifices were offered after the flood (Genesis 8:20).
• God was (or gods were) pleased by this (Genesis 8:21), and Noah and Utnapishtim received blessings. Noah's was to populate the earth and have dominion over all animals (Genesis 9:1–3); Utnapishtim's was eternal life.
• God (or the many gods) promised not to destroy humankind again (Genesis 8:21–22).
Perhaps most interesting is how the stories remain consistent over time. Although the complete Epic was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century, much earlier segments (before the writing of Genesis) have been discovered and dated. Yet most significant is the greater fidelity of the Hebrew account. This is attributed to the importance of Jewish oral tradition and the possibility that some of the story was recorded by Noah or from his time, which would make the Hebrew account precede the Babylonian version.
Some scholars hypothesize the Hebrews borrowed the Babylonian account, but no conclusive proof has been offered to support this. Based on the many and varied differences and details within these stories, it seems unlikely that the biblical version depended upon an existing Sumerian source. Further, given the Jews' reputation for passing down information scrupulously from one generation to another and maintaining a consistent reporting of events, Genesis is viewed by many as far more historical than the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is regarded as mythological because of its numerous gods and their interrelationships and intrigues in deciding the fate of humankind.
Certainly, for those who believe the Bible is God's Word, it is sensible to conclude He chose to preserve the true account in the Bible through the oral traditions of His chosen people. By God's providence, Jews kept this account pure and consistent over the centuries until Moses ultimately recorded it in the Book of Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to contain accounts which have been altered and embellished over the years by people not following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on December 9, 2013 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: How Does DNA Point to the Existence of a Creator?
Over the millennia, believers in God have marshaled numerous arguments in an attempt to demonstrate God's existence. Various forms of the cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments have been developed and refined with much success. One frequently discussed form of theistic argument has been the argument from design. The design argument has had many notable proponents from Plato to Thomas Aquinas and beyond.
While several versions of the design argument are valid and have been persuasive to many, recent discoveries at the cellular level have provided further ammunition for design proponents. In 1953, researchers Francis Crick and James Watson elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule. In doing so, they discovered that DNA was a carrier of specific genetic information that takes the form of a four character digital code. This information is contained in an arraignment of four chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G. The sequences of these chemicals provide the instructions necessary to assemble complex protein molecules that, in turn, help form structures diverse as eyes, wings, and legs.
As Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has noted, "As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of "sequence specificity" or "specified complexity" that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A's, T's, G's, and C's) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell."
The information-bearing properties in the DNA molecule seem obvious. However, does this fact, by itself, force us to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause of this intelligence? Meyer continues, "Whether we are looking at a hieroglyphic inscription, a section of text in a book, or computer software, if you have information, and you trace it back to its source, invariably you come to an intelligence. Therefore, when you find information inscribed along the backbone of the DNA molecule in the cell, the most rational inference, based upon our repeated experience, is that an intelligence of some kind played a role in the origin of that information."
The information-rich features of DNA provide further confirmation that our universe was created and designed by God. As the Apostle Paul said in his letter to the church at Rome, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). This inspired utterance seems more obvious now than when it was originally written nearly 2,000 years ago.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on November 25, 2013 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: Does the Bible Teach Geocentrism?
This is a very important question because the answer helps to shape our belief system and worldview, both of which have eternal consequences. The short answer to this question is "no." Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is at the center of the universe. For many centuries, however, people believed that Claudius Ptolemaeus and others were correct when they advocated an Earth-centered universe. They wanted to believe this theory because some thought, incorrectly, that this is what the Bible teaches.
Taken in order, Genesis 1:14–18, Psalm 104:5, Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 were often cited to support the geocentric theory of Ptolemaeus. Yet none of these Scriptures, taken in any order whatsoever, state that God designed the universe with Earth at its center. In fact, Earth isn't even the center of its own small solar system; the sun is. We can understand why Copernicus and, later, Galileo, who posited the sun-centered (heliocentric) theory, caused such a controversy in the church. It was thought that heliocentricism contradicted the biblical teaching of geocentrism. But, again, the problem was that God's Word doesn't say that the Earth is at the center of anything. Sadly, as time went on and people came to understand that the Earth did in fact revolve around the Sun, many simply lost faith in God's Word, because they had falsely been taught geocentrism.
We must remember that Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. How ironic that science has never disproved one word of the Bible, yet it has caused many people to walk away from God. The ever-changing theories of fallible man come and go. Not so with the Word of God, however, as it endures forever (Matthew 5:18). Any time there is an irreconcilable difference between the two, the Bible is where we need to place our faith.[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on November 2, 2013 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: How Does the Cambrian Explosion Fit within the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism?
The earth's crust consists of many layers of fossil-bearing rock. It was once believed that the lowest layer of fossil-bearing rock was the Cambrian and that Precambrian rock was totally devoid of any fossil remains. It is now known that there are actually some, though very few, primitive fossils in the Precambrian. But it is not until the Cambrian layer that we find a sudden burst of life.
The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the sudden appearance of most of the world's known animal phyla, all within a very brief period of geological time (by the conventional standard). The sudden appearance of so many of the major innovations to the basic structures of known animal forms has always been somewhat problematic for Darwin's theory of gradual innovation. But how does the Cambrian Explosion fit with the framework of young-earth creationism?
The old-earth position is that the vast majority of earth's strata represent long epochs of time, typically millions of years, and that the fossils found in the lower layers evolved before those found in the upper layers. The young-earth position is that nearly all of the strata from the Cambrian period on up were deposited in relatively quick succession as the result of a catastrophic global deluge and subsequent natural disasters, and that the order in which fossils are found is a result of hydrological mechanics (hydrologic sorting for example, the phenomenon whereby dirt spontaneously settles into layers after being kicked up in water).
The conspicuous presence of so many of the world's known animal phyla in the bottom layer does not prove or disprove one position or the other. So young-earth proponents rely on other physical evidences to make their case, including poly-strata fossils (that is, fossils that pass through multiple strata), misplaced and missing fossils and strata, the lack of erosion between strata, the deficiency of bioturbation, undisturbed bedding planes, the limited extent of unconformities, soft-sediment deformation, and well-preserved surface features between layers, etc.
There are, for example, plenty of out-of-place fossils. Sometimes rock layers containing what are thought to be older fossils are found above rock layers that contain what are thought to be younger fossils (the younger fossils should be on top). The solution for Darwinian geologists is to argue that the strata containing the misplaced fossils were shuffled out of order by some natural geological process. They then reorganize the discrepant fossils and rock layers logically using the assumed order in which the creatures were supposed to have evolved; i.e., this organism was supposed to have evolved before this one, so it goes here on bottom, while this organism was supposed to have evolved after this one so it goes here on top, etc. Darwinian biologists then turn around and use the evolutionary progression organized by the geologists as evidence for the evolutionary progression that the geologists used to organize the strata. This is, of course, circular reasoning.
To summarize, each viewpoint, whether young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, or Darwinian evolution, struggles somewhat with explaining the Cambrian Explosion. In no sense, though, is the Cambrian Explosion contradictory with young-earth creationism. In fact, young-earth creationism perhaps has the clearest explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, that of the global deluge. Whatever the case, the evidence for the Cambrian Explosion is no reason to doubt the veracity of Genesis' account of creation (Genesis chapters 1–2, 6–8).[1]
This entry was posted in Creation Questions, Questions & Biblical Answers on October 12, 2013 by Truth2Freedom.
Questions about Creation: Is the Concept of Lucifer's Flood Biblical?
There have been attempts by some Christians to reinvent the Genesis account of the creation in order to make it compatible with the theories of modern geology and evolution. Of these attempts, there are three that are most popular: theistic evolution, progressive creation, and the gap theory, from which the term Lucifer's flood, also known as the Luciferian flood, is derived. There is only one reason why Christians attempt to compromise God's Word in this manner—they have accepted the claims of modern geologists and evolutionists that the earth is millions, if not billions, of years old, and they look for ways to squeeze these unfounded millions of years into the Genesis account.
Basically, the gap theory, which for some incorporates the so-called Lucifer's flood, teaches that many millions of years ago God created a perfect heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1). At that time, Satan was ruler of the earth, which was inhabited by a race of men without any souls. Satan rebelled, and sin entered the universe after Satan's rebellion and fall from heaven and brought God's judgment in the form of a flood named for him—Lucifer's flood. All the plant, animal and human fossils upon the earth today were caused by this flood and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and humans living today. This flood is said to have occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and it was this Luciferian flood that reduced the world to a state described as "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2.
The gap theory claims that the earth is very old, possibly millions of years, based on the observation that rock layers form very slowly today. The gap theorists claim to believe in a six-day creation and insist that they are against evolution. However, the same geologic evidence is used as proof for millions of years by evolutionists. For that reason, the gap theorists must now "play" with the Scriptures. They must propose that God literally reshaped the earth and re-created all life in six literal days, but not until after a Luciferian flood which produced the fossils we see today.
But there are some serious problems with this compromise with the Scriptures. First of all, the gap theory forces millions of years into the "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 without any regard for biblical and scientific accuracy, and then claims to hold to a literal Genesis. This, in turn, brings up the question of the meaning of the term "literal." "Literal" means "word-for-word accuracy." Either God's Word is literally true, or it is interpreted. It is impossible to have a literal interpretation; that would be an oxymoron because the two terms are mutually exclusive. If one's interpretation of the Bible is contradicted by another verse in the Bible, that interpretation cannot be correct if we hold to a literal Genesis account of creation.
If God created a perfect heaven and earth, then all life on earth must also be perfect. If this "perfect life" was the source of the fossils buried by Lucifer's flood, and sin entered this world by Satan's rebellion, why do these same fossils show abundant evidence for disease and deformities by modern scientific analysis? The presence of disease and deformities in fossils proves that all things could not have been perfect and sin was already present before the flood that buried them. If sin was present before God's judgment of Satan, then either the Bible is wrong or the gap theory is flawed.
If Lucifer's flood was God's judgment against Satan, and the earth was destroyed to such a state that it was without form and void, why did this flood not destroy the fossil record as well? What about Noah's flood? Gap theorists must assume it had no significance. If Noah's flood was not significant, why is the story of Noah used throughout the Bible to show God's judgment on man, while Lucifer's flood is never mentioned once? How can someone believe that Noah's flood was insignificant and then believe in a literal Genesis?
The truth is that even the Bible shows the problem with the gap theory. Though the Bible doesn't reveal all the details of God's creation in modern scientific terms, to believe modern geologists and evolutionists and their unfounded millions and billions of years is nothing less than believing the words of man (science) instead of the Word of God.
Does it really matter whether we accept a "literal" interpretation of the Creation? The answer is "yes!" The gap theorists with their concept of the Luciferian flood believe that there was death before Adam, but the Bible declares unequivocally the opposite to be true. Romans 5:12 states that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin," so to accept the concept of death before the time of Adam is to destroy the foundational message of the cross: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Jesus Christ] the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). To advocate the concept of death before Adam sinned is diametrically opposed to Scripture's explanation that death came after Adam sinned and became the necessity for man's redemption.
Genesis records a catastrophe responsible for destroying everything that had the "breath of life" in them, except for those preserved in the ark. Christ refers to the global flood in Noah's day in Matthew 24:37–39, and Peter writes that just as there was once a worldwide judgment of mankind by water, so there will be another worldwide judgment, this time by fire (2 Peter 3). The theory of Lucifer's flood is completely without scriptural evidence and must be rejected.[1]


First of all, it is a platform.
There are many providers of modern WMS's (Warehouse Management System) around the world. While some are great products, others use an old frame behind a modern appearance. Our research team was proactive. We have found one of the best platforms on the market: Microsoft Dynamics NAV.
Dynamics NAV is an easy-to-use, cost-effective, global enterprise resource planning (ERP) solution for your small- to medium-sized business needs.
With a flexible development environment and quick implementation options, Dynamics NAV will support your business's growth trajectory, while providing financial transparency, and streamlining your supply chain, manufacturing, and operational needs.
Operating both on-premise and with full-migration capability to the Cloud, Dynamics NAV will also support your multifaceted business needs – whether they be multi-company, multi-currency or multi-language.
Our WMS is customized product of the 3PL Software company on Microsoft Dynamics NAV platform. It allows us to create the most value for your bottom line and for your customers today! We may guarantee that yours and your customers' critical data is accurate and secure. Technology makes your data highly responsive. We manage your inventory more efficiently then most others. Due our smart tools that help us make effective and fast operations. 3PLink is an integral part of technology solution we use. It pays for itself quickly. You can be totally confident in our WMS reliability. 3PLink is helping us to manage our operations better. Technology we use will make you a better strategic partner for your customers.
Pick, pack and ship for multi piece orders.
Drop stream integration to connect to popular shopping carts.
Integrations to UPS, FedEx and USPS available.
Typically food grade warehousing and pharmaceuticals.
Lot traceability and reporting per food modernization act.
Picking by FIFO or FEFO, advanced code data rules for retail compliance.
Tier 2 reporting and DOT compliant HazMat BOLs. MSDS sheets.
CAS formula tracking/ Un number for hazardous substance identification.
Standard comments (such as emergency contact information) can be printed on outbound paperwork.
Retail compliance EDI and labels.
VICS BOL and custom packing slip.
Across various industries, including apparel, chemicals, automotive, paper, and more.


Sign up for the "Babyjanes best discount codes" email alert.
Even better discounts on Babyjanes may be available in our More Ways to Save section.
You can earn Amazon gift cards for sharing Babyjanes coupons on Dealspotr. Learn more.
Babyjanes is a major children's apparel retailer which operates the website amazon.com. As of today, we have no active coupons. The Dealspotr community last updated this page on November 7, 2014.
Have a Babyjanes coupon to share?
Babyjanes rarely offers promo codes. On average, Babyjanes offers 0 codes or coupons per month. Check this page often, or follow Babyjanes (hit the follow button up top) to keep updated on their latest discount codes.
Check for Babyjanes' promo code exclusions. Babyjanes promo codes sometimes have exceptions on certain categories or brands.
Look for the blue "site-wide" label for site-wide Babyjanes promo codes. Site-wide codes can be applied to any item on Babyjanes' website, and therefore are the most useful codes.


American soldiers hoisting the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima.
Veterans Day is an annual American holiday honoring military veterans. A federal holiday, it is usually observed on November 11. However, if it occurs on a Sunday then the following Monday is designated for holiday leave, and if it occurs Saturday then either Saturday or Friday may be so designated.
We have placed a detailed description of this event on this page: Veterans Day 2019. For further information please stop by there!


text:
Victress! The World's Fastest Sports Car: Motor Life, August 1955
Posted on March 31, 2012 by Geoff HackerMay 27, 2020
I'm sure that Doc Boyce-Smith, founder of the Boyce-Smith Company which produced the Victress S1 sports car body in '52 and '53, felt like Paul Revere when a car using the Victress body set the record for "Fastest Sportscar In The World" at Bonneville in '53. I'm sure he shouted…
"Victress….Worlds Fastest Sports Car! Victress….Worlds Fastest Sports Car!"
And who wouldn't? The company he founded in late '52 had achieved fame and notoriety in such a short period of time. And just after the Bonneville record his car was selected as one of the feature cars of the upcoming movie "Johnny Dark" staring Tony Curtis and Piper Laurie.
I can't imagine how excited he and the folks at Victress were back then. And here it was in August 1955, Motor Life was not only reporting on the achievement from two years ago, but featuring the "World's Fastest Sports Car" again in its latest form – poised to continue its success in a newly modified form.
Let's see what Motor Life had to say about the second life of the Guy Maybee Victress – the World's Fastest Sports Car.
The World's Fastest Sports Car
Motor Life, August 1955
By John Christy
The Mabee Special is a piece of backyard machinery known variously as the "Streetliner" and as the "Fastest Sports Car in the World." Both terms had been used two years ago when the car turned 202 mph at the Bonneville trials. At the time there was some justification for calling it a Streetliner, since the car never would have passed the road race technical committee.
The following year the car was changed from alcohol-nitro to gas and ran a top time of 196.50 mph. So the owners, Texas oilman Guy Mabee and his son, took the car to the March Field sports car road races. After a fast start the car was in and out of the pits, but hung to within a lap of the leaders and finished seventh.
Originally, the streetliner chassis was a double rail affair, following Chuck Manning's principle of close-set truss tubing but with heavier two-inch chromemoly tubing and set up for transversely placed torsion bars instead of leaf springs. Front and rear axles were 1946-48 Ford, the rear equipped with a Halibrand quick-change center section. Brakes on all four wheels were reworked 11-inch Lincoln units modified by Chuck Manning into his version of Al-Fins. Kurtis torsion bars were used all the way around. Wheels were and are Halibrand pin-drive knock-off disc units.
Since its maiden trip to the salt, several changes have been made. The front end has been modified to take the Kurtis tubular axle and the steering has been rerouted so that the column now passes under the left rocker cover on the engine rather than over it as originally built. The same Gemmer sector is used with a Kurtis pitman arm. The homemade brakes have been discarded in favor of Halibrand double-spot brakes and Indianapolis reversible wheels can replace the sports car type shown here.
A 389 cubic inch (6.37 litre) Chrysler V-8, modified by Ray Brown Automotive, produces 350 hp on gas at 5100 rpm. To achieve this healthy performance, the engine has been bored three-sixteenths oversize to four inches and stroked .250 of an inch to give a piston travel of 3 7/8 inches. To stroke a Chrysler crank that much requires that each crankpin be metal sprayed to bring it back to size. The metallurgy of the crank is such that the collar formed by the spray breaks loose under stress and twists on the crankpin. Brown solved this problem by setting bronze pins 180 degrees apart in each journal. The throws were then ground to size and no shifting of the new metal has been noted after a year of hard use.
Another problem lay in the fact that at high speeds the drive gear on the cam and the driven gear carrying the magneto shaft would wear at racing speeds to such an extent that as much as 10 degrees of slop would be noted in the ignition timing. Experiments showed that these gears were not getting sufficient oil to keep the steel drive gear from chewing up the cast iron magneto drive.
A study of the oil passages showed that two galleries ran through the block alongside the tappet bores. Each bore had a hole leading to these galleries to provide pressure to the hydraulic tappets but since roller tappets were used in the modified engine, these were found not only unnecessary but detrimental. The 80-lb. oil pressure actually caused side thrust and resultant wear on the tappets.
The holes were plugged with brass rod, thus letting full pressure go through the galleries around to a plug at the left rear, leading into the magneto drive chamber. This plug was drilled with a .030-inch hole and the wear problem was stopped due to the resulting stream of oil which bathed the two gears. It's the little things that count.
The heads were modified by cleaning out the ports and enlarging the intake valves to 2 1/16 inches. Sodium cooled valves were then set into big-bore bronze guides. Chrysler Marine rockers, which are adjustable, replace the stock items and are used with very light .058 wall chrome-moly push rods manufactured by Brown's company.
The stiffness of these push rods is such that there is less than .010 of an inch whip with the engine operating at 5000 rpm! No milling was done to the heads, the increase in displacement, coupled with the use of J.E. high dome racing pistons being sufficient to bring the compression up to 10-to-1.
Induction for record runs is by the injector system. On shorter road courses a triple carburetor manifold bearing three Stromberg dual throat carburetors is used. Experiments are now being made to set up the injectors for full-time use, however.
All this pressure is delivered to the driveline via a stock flywheel and a 2800-pound Frictionmaster clutch to a ZF four-speed gearbox and thence to the shortened late Ford drive shaft.
The German made ZF (Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen, A.G.) box was a later addition, installed when it was found that the Ford transmission, while sufficient for straightaway runs, was not beefy enough nor of close enough ratios for closed circuit road racing. Although expensive and not easy to acquire, the ZF box has for years been practically S.O.P. in Grand Prix due to its ruggedness and even ratios of 25 percent step-up between gears.
All of this proves a point,that point being that a successful sports car does not have to have the tradition of years behind it to be good but it does have to have considerable thought and cooperation in its design and make-up.
And the Guy Mabee Victress survives to this day – too fast and too important to have disappeared in the mists of time. Owners Jim and Lea Ann Robinson most recently featured their Victress at the Milwaukee Masterpiece Concours d' Elegance. Click here to review this special showing in Milwaukee in 2011.
And rumor has it that their Victress may appear at the Salisbury Concours d' Elegance later this year held in Des Moines, Iowa. So if you want to see their car again, be sure to post your comments at the bottom of this story and let 'em know how you feel. How great would it be to see this special car again this year 🙂
Currrent Story Categories: Forgotten Fiberglass, Guy Mabee Special, Victress	permalink
Victress! The World's Fastest Sports Car: Motor Life, August 1955 — 3 Comments
Joel on December 17, 2012 at 2:55 pm said:
Although this article calls the original brakes "Al-Fins" I think these were actually copper finned brakes that were designed by Chuck Manning but made by Dave Margolien. Chuck and Dave went into business together called Copper-Flow. I am still learning about this company and hope to post a story about it on this site.
I also find it interesting that they used Chuck's idea of a close truss frame but, they went against what Chuck preached, you don't need Chrome Molly tubing for the frame. But then again this isn't like Chucks car which was made for a supposed $700, this one looks like cost wasn't a player in what they got, thus paying for the chrome molly.
Ted Griffin on March 31, 2012 at 4:15 pm said:
Quite a car! You may want to look into a Kelmark GT that topped out at 205 MPH on a closed track in Ohio, some years ago. It is also fiberglass kit car.
Hugh on March 31, 2012 at 11:46 am said:
The ZF transmission shown here was originally built for mid-size trucks. Years ago John Bond told of them in one of his Sportscar Design articles. He stated that Briggs Cunningham purchased 6 with aluminum cases. These were for the C6R offy powered Cunningham. Also in 1956 one of the Corvettes at Daytona Speed Week had a cast iron one like this car had. [Corvette had no 4-speed until 1957]
I have one of these 'beasts' that came with and adapter to a 331 Cadillac belhousing. I have yet to find what it was originally in.
It took years of research to piece most of the ZF's history togeather on them. The ZF offices in Germany and London had no records of it. A couple of years ago I saw some parts for one on a Dutch car site. The guy was from one of the former 'Iron Curtain' countries and was a vintage truck collector. It is odd what the inter-net comes up with at times.
"No one is stirred more than (Henry) Ford at the prospect of seeing that all-plastic-bodied car…."
— Henry Ford

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
All URIs are relative to *https://YOUR_INSTANCE.wavefront.com*

Method | HTTP request | Description
------------- | ------------- | -------------
[**create_recent_traces_search**](RecentTracesSearchApi.md#create_recent_traces_search) | **POST** /api/v2/recenttracessearch | Create a search
[**get_all_recent_traces_searches**](RecentTracesSearchApi.md#get_all_recent_traces_searches) | **GET** /api/v2/recenttracessearch | Get all searches for a user
[**get_recent_traces_search**](RecentTracesSearchApi.md#get_recent_traces_search) | **GET** /api/v2/recenttracessearch/{id} | Get a specific search

# **create_recent_traces_search**
> ResponseContainerRecentTracesSearch create_recent_traces_search(body=body)

Create a search

### Example
```python
from __future__ import print_function
import time
import wavefront_api_client
from wavefront_api_client.rest import ApiException
from pprint import pprint

# Configure API key authorization: api_key
configuration = wavefront_api_client.Configuration()
configuration.api_key['X-AUTH-TOKEN'] = 'YOUR_API_KEY'
# Uncomment below to setup prefix (e.g. Bearer) for API key, if needed
# configuration.api_key_prefix['X-AUTH-TOKEN'] = 'Bearer'

# create an instance of the API class
api_instance = wavefront_api_client.RecentTracesSearchApi(wavefront_api_client.ApiClient(configuration))
body = wavefront_api_client.RecentTracesSearch() # RecentTracesSearch | Example Body:  <pre>{   \"searchFilters\": {     \"filters\": [       {         \"filterType\": \"OPERATION\",         \"values\": {           \"logicalValue\": [             [               \"beachshirts.\", \"shopping.\", \"'*\"             ]           ]         }       }     ]   } }</pre> (optional)

try:
    # Create a search
    api_response = api_instance.create_recent_traces_search(body=body)
    pprint(api_response)
except ApiException as e:
    print("Exception when calling RecentTracesSearchApi->create_recent_traces_search: %s\n" % e)
```

### Parameters

Name | Type | Description  | Notes
------------- | ------------- | ------------- | -------------
 **body** | [**RecentTracesSearch**](RecentTracesSearch.md)| Example Body:  <pre>{   \"searchFilters\": {     \"filters\": [       {         \"filterType\": \"OPERATION\",         \"values\": {           \"logicalValue\": [             [               \"beachshirts.\", \"shopping.\", \"'*\"             ]           ]         }       }     ]   } }</pre> | [optional]

### Return type

[**ResponseContainerRecentTracesSearch**](ResponseContainerRecentTracesSearch.md)

### Authorization

[api_key](../README.md#api_key)

### HTTP request headers

 - **Content-Type**: application/json
 - **Accept**: application/json

[[Back to top]](#) [[Back to API list]](../README.md#documentation-for-api-endpoints) [[Back to Model list]](../README.md#documentation-for-models) [[Back to README]](../README.md)

# **get_all_recent_traces_searches**
> ResponseContainerPagedRecentTracesSearch get_all_recent_traces_searches(offset=offset, limit=limit)

Get all searches for a user

### Example
```python
from __future__ import print_function
import time
import wavefront_api_client
from wavefront_api_client.rest import ApiException
from pprint import pprint

# Configure API key authorization: api_key
configuration = wavefront_api_client.Configuration()
configuration.api_key['X-AUTH-TOKEN'] = 'YOUR_API_KEY'
# Uncomment below to setup prefix (e.g. Bearer) for API key, if needed
# configuration.api_key_prefix['X-AUTH-TOKEN'] = 'Bearer'

# create an instance of the API class
api_instance = wavefront_api_client.RecentTracesSearchApi(wavefront_api_client.ApiClient(configuration))
offset = 0 # int |  (optional) (default to 0)
limit = 100 # int |  (optional) (default to 100)

try:
    # Get all searches for a user
    api_response = api_instance.get_all_recent_traces_searches(offset=offset, limit=limit)
    pprint(api_response)
except ApiException as e:
    print("Exception when calling RecentTracesSearchApi->get_all_recent_traces_searches: %s\n" % e)
```

### Parameters

Name | Type | Description  | Notes
------------- | ------------- | ------------- | -------------
 **offset** | **int**|  | [optional] [default to 0]
 **limit** | **int**|  | [optional] [default to 100]

### Return type

[**ResponseContainerPagedRecentTracesSearch**](ResponseContainerPagedRecentTracesSearch.md)

### Authorization

[api_key](../README.md#api_key)

### HTTP request headers

 - **Content-Type**: Not defined
 - **Accept**: application/json

[[Back to top]](#) [[Back to API list]](../README.md#documentation-for-api-endpoints) [[Back to Model list]](../README.md#documentation-for-models) [[Back to README]](../README.md)

# **get_recent_traces_search**
> ResponseContainerRecentTracesSearch get_recent_traces_search(id)

Get a specific search

### Example
```python
from __future__ import print_function
import time
import wavefront_api_client
from wavefront_api_client.rest import ApiException
from pprint import pprint

# Configure API key authorization: api_key
configuration = wavefront_api_client.Configuration()
configuration.api_key['X-AUTH-TOKEN'] = 'YOUR_API_KEY'
# Uncomment below to setup prefix (e.g. Bearer) for API key, if needed
# configuration.api_key_prefix['X-AUTH-TOKEN'] = 'Bearer'

# create an instance of the API class
api_instance = wavefront_api_client.RecentTracesSearchApi(wavefront_api_client.ApiClient(configuration))
id = 'id_example' # str |

try:
    # Get a specific search
    api_response = api_instance.get_recent_traces_search(id)
    pprint(api_response)
except ApiException as e:
    print("Exception when calling RecentTracesSearchApi->get_recent_traces_search: %s\n" % e)
```

### Parameters

Name | Type | Description  | Notes
------------- | ------------- | ------------- | -------------
 **id** | **str**|  |

### Return type

[**ResponseContainerRecentTracesSearch**](ResponseContainerRecentTracesSearch.md)

### Authorization

[api_key](../README.md#api_key)

### HTTP request headers

 - **Content-Type**: Not defined
 - **Accept**: application/json

[[Back to top]](#) [[Back to API list]](../README.md#documentation-for-api-endpoints) [[Back to Model list]](../README.md#documentation-for-models) [[Back to README]](../README.md)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Welcome to South Central Iowa Community Action Program
We provide a variety of programs to assist families with different needs. Our trained staff work with families to help them overcome everyday problems with food, housing, money management, education, and employment, so that they may achieve self-sufficiency.
SCICAP empowers individuals and families with services to become self-sufficient and contribute positively to their communities.
Water, Sewer, Garbage
Personal Care/Cleaning
In Search of 2 Directors for Governing Board
The SCICAP Governing Board of Directors has vacant seats for a Lucas and a Monroe County Representative of Low-Income Clients. These board directors must be recruited from persons receiving services from SCICAP including Head Start parents and must reside in Lucas and Monroe County. Persons who agree to run for election for this position will have their names put on the ballot. Ballots will be placed at the Lucas and Monroe County Outreach offices as well as the Lucas and Clarke Head Start centers for low-income participants to vote. Ballots are cast for a one-week period. At the end of the voting period, the county outreach coordinator will collect and count the ballots. The person obtaining the most votes is elected as the representative to the SCICAP governing board of directors. Please contact Brenda at 641-774-8133 ext. 223 if you would like to have your name added to the ballot
Head Start Preschool Sign Up!
We are excited to be accepting new children in to our full day 3 and 4 year old Head Start Preschool Programs and Early Head Start Programs in all five counties!
Our Early Head Start Program serves pregnant moms, infants and toddlers up to age 3. We offer a home based visitation option and a center based Monday thru Friday program in Leon.
Click HERE to apply! NO COST to qualifying families!
Call 641-774-8133 EXT 242 to learn more!
Whatever your emergency please contact us by calling or using the Contact Us form.
"In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), disability, age, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity.
To learn more click here or visit https://educateiowa.gov/pk-12/nutrition-programs.


Why Speech Spark is Different - the Therapist you choose matters.
I want to THANK YOU for considering Speech Spark Services, LLC.
You have choices when selecting a communication specialist. I want to share with you what makes Speech Spark different than other services you may find at your outpatient therapy center.
Maintain high standards of care and providing services using evidence-based practice. I regularly (it could be considered a hobby) research techniques, strategies, options out there so that we can select the most efficient path to help clients reach their goals.
Limit the number of clients I see so that I can devote time and focus on individualized plans using the latest research and strategies so that my clients only get the best treatments. In many settings, clinicians are stretched thin or limited in the frequency or length of treatment sessions. I individualize the plan to meet the client's goals, not insurance restrictions.
Use the latest software in online meetings and providing services through telepractice when available.
Provide thorough evaluations to determine the most appropriate plan of care for each client.
Develop a plan of care that targets the client's priorities and goals.
Collaborate with clients, their family, and their caregivers to provide therapy focused on the client's priorities.
Use function and home programs to help clients transfer learned speech and language skills to their everyday lives not just in the therapy session.
Learn more about the specialized speech therapy services available in the Greater Green Bay area.
Let me know or comment here what information you'd like to learn more about and I'll focus curating and posting the best ideas / newest research out there.
Let me help you find the information you need to help recover communication.
Older PostDo you have the best SLP for you?
Beth Dolar, a certified Speech-Language Pathologist is based in Green Bay, Wisconsin. A mother of two, she enjoys exploring creativity, the outdoors, and travel. Beth focuses on intensive in-home speech therapy including stroke recovery and voice therapy. Online therapy available in some areas.
Medical Disclaimer: Content provided on this website is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing medical advice. If you are seeking individualized advice and/or speech therapy, please contact a speech-language pathologist in your area. See Terms and Conditions.


text:
require 'support/spec_support'
require 'moduler'

module StructAttributeTests
  @num = 0
end

describe Moduler do
  context "With a struct class" do
    def make_struct_class(&block)
      StructAttributeTests.module_eval do
        @num += 1
        Moduler.struct("Test#{@num}") { instance_eval(&block) }
        const_get("Test#{@num}")
      end
    end

    let(:struct) do
      struct_class.new
    end

    context "with a struct attribute" do
      let(:struct_class) do
        make_struct_class do
          attribute :foo, Struct do
            attribute :a
          end
        end
      end

      it "Defaults to empty struct" do
        expect(struct.foo).to eq(struct_class.new)
      end

      it "Default struct doesn't affect is_set" do
        expect(struct.is_set?(:foo)).to be_falsey
        expect(struct.foo).to eq(struct_class.new)
        expect(struct.to_hash).to eq({})
        expect(struct.is_set?(:foo)).to be_falsey

        expect(struct.foo.a).to be_nil
        expect(struct.is_set?(:foo)).to be_falsey
        expect(struct.to_hash).to eq({})
      end

      it "Default hash modifiers *do* affect is_set" do
        expect(struct.foo.a = 10).to eq 10
        expect(struct.is_set?(:foo)).to be_truthy
        expect(struct.to_hash).to eq({foo: {a: 10}})
      end

      it ".foo = { :a => 1 } setter works" do
        expect(struct.foo = { :a => 1 }).to eq({ :a => 1 })
        expect(struct.foo).to eq({ :a => 1 })
      end

      it ".foo :a => 1 setter works" do
        struct.foo :a => 1
        expect(struct.foo).to eq({ :a => 1 })
      end

      it ".foo {a:1}, true raises an error" do
        expect { struct.foo({a:1}, true) }.to raise_error(ArgumentError)
      end

      it ".foo {a:1}, {b:2}, {c:3} raises an error" do
        expect { struct.foo({a:1}, {b:2}, {c:3}) }.to raise_error(ArgumentError)
      end

      it ".foo = 10 throws an exception" do
        expect { struct.foo = 10 }.to raise_error(Moduler::ValidationFailed)
      end

      it ".foo nil yields nil" do
        expect(struct.foo nil).to be_nil
        expect(struct.is_set?(:foo)).to be_truthy
        expect(struct.foo).to be_nil
      end
    end
  end
end


text:
Article modified: April 2019, Author: VolResource Editor
An attempt to give some context for the rest of VolResource website, and associated projects. First created March 2006.
Background to the sector and effective organisations - Contents
1 Voluntary and community organisations – Overview
2 Sector trends and issues
2.1 Professionalisation, public services
3 What you need to know
4 Find what you want and act on it
4.1 Our approach
Voluntary and community organisations – Overview
Voluntary organisations can be confusing for those new to the sector, or newly given responsibility when they have previously been happily working away in the frontline. It can be difficult to know where to start – that's what we will try to help with here. Your site editor has thirty years of baggage to put to one side first, so this may require some refinement!
Workers, managers, pundits and consultants will often refer to the voluntary sector as if it is clear what we are talking about. A quick look at our Glossary should show that is not necessarily so. Sometimes referred to as making up the third sector, voluntary organisations can be very different to those in the first two, private business and public authorities. But there are in fact few hard boundaries – small local firms can have much in common with community groups employing staff, and national charities will have similar management problems to larger companies. One way of looking at it is as a 2 dimensional continuum (courtesy of OUBS): informal groupings to institutions and bureaucracies, and social goals/public benefit via mutual benefit to private/economic goals. (See organisational management page for some more in this area.)
VolResource works on the basis that housing associations, academic institutes, trade unions and trade or professional bodies are on the edges, for one reason or another. That doesn't mean that none of what this site covers is relevant, just that they operate in specific contexts (and their own support systems).
Sector trends and issues
Professionalisation, public services
There has been a lot of change in the sector over the last 20 or 30 years. It has grown in its range and numbers, and it is often thought to have increased in professionalism at the expense of passion, innovation and informality. While this may well be true, there are still a lot of community groups, ad-hoc campaigns and new approaches to problems out there. Some may be hidden under new labels, such as 'social enterprise', and others not fit government funding priorities so exist on a shoe-string. New regulations around child protection, for instance, can undoubtedly make an impact on how easy it is to set up a youth group but difficulties can be exaggerated and distorted.
Passion, innovation and informality have long been valued by those involved in voluntary groups. But they have both strengths and weaknesses. Poorly thought through ideas, inadequately managed processes or untested facilities can all result in a lot of wasted effort (and resources), and might even make things worse, rather than better. A little time and care before, during and after taking action can avoid many of the pitfalls and should lead to things going forward rather than standing still or going round in circles.
With increasing attention from politicians on what voluntary organisations can deliver, and a higher profile for some charities from recent natural disasters and upcoming new charity law, the 'operating environment' is increasingly complex. But most people in most organisations still just need to get on with establishing good practice.
We say 'good practice' rather than 'best practice' on purpose. The latter is often taken to mean referring to a checklist of policies, set ways of managing meetings or appointing trustees etc, without recognising that every organisation's circumstances are different. Committee members/trustees with different backgrounds, and even some support organisations, seem to think that management practices they have learnt elsewhere can be applied wholesale. Claiming that your organisation has to start from scratch on everything, because it is unique, is equally a poor approach. VolResource believes that by using some thought, you can learn from commercial businesses, the public sector or other charities, but application by rote is a route to failure.
Find what you want and act on it
If approached in the wrong way the large amount of material on this site could make things worse.
There is an awful lot involved in running a successful organisation or project, whatever its size or complexity. It can be a daunting prospect. You can't do everything at once, and trying to do too much can end up with nothing done well, and probably much having to be redone (by you or someone else after you've burnt out!).
Work out what is important for your particular circumstances. It can help to talk things through with someone from outside, whether from an official support body or not, as an 'uninvolved' view may well spot something you have taken for granted, and just by having to communicate what you are trying to do often clarifies the issues.
Don't forget about the other issues – perhaps people with a particular interest can be found to help with them or come up with a timetable to work through them. Just don't lose the focus.
VolResource attempts to bring together the wealth of information and support that is available for voluntary organisations, but can be difficult to track down, or even to know that it exists. Things have improved since VolResource first appeared, in spring 1999, but there's still reason enough for us to continue. We don't claim to be definitive, and instead aim to be a starting point, particularly on 'what is useful to those relatively new to the sector or a particular aspect of its work'.
By signing up for the email newsletter you can be kept informed of relevant developments on specific sector issues, new advice and regulations in admin and management plus new online resources as we find them – it can take a little while for us to update relevant pages on the VolResource site.
The site can also be used as a database of contacts. See pages marked with the 'contact list' category.
Fundraising has largely been left to one side, as a particular area of expertise which has plenty of coverage elsewhere – see Fundraising resources.
The site will continue to be developed and updated, as useful material is published, the sector changes or new thinking appears. VolResource aims to use developments in internet and other communication technology to further reduce barriers within the sector which has previously kept useful, hard-won knowledge within relatively small circles.
Tags: starting, VolResource
Registration: Charity and/or Company