July 4 isn’t just about NASCAR, hot dogs and soda. How many people take the time to remember those events over 200 years ago? The founding document of the country?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Serious words — words deserving more respect than a hot dog and soda.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Equally serious words for the Christian. It’s time to get involved. If the country be Godly, it’s because the people demand it. And if it slouch toward Gomorrah, it’s because the people tolerate it.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

If those men accomplished so much for the country, how much more should we pledge to God? How often do we think about it?

We’ve referred to doublethink several times, but many have asked what exactly it consists of. Surely it doesn’t really exist, as Orwell wrote a fictionalized account of a future government in “1984”. No, it really exists — consider an editorial by the Register-Guard, noting the Oregon Legislature just provided a wonderful example of Doublethink. But first, allow Orwell himself to provide the definition.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. … To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (Orwell, George “Nineteen Eighty-Four” page 35, 176–177)

So what did the Oregon Legislature do? Just switched the definition of “YES” and “NO” votes for certain elections:

A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.

Or, as the editorial continues, pointing out the absurdity of the Oregon Legislature’s actions:

So, let’s see: If opponents of the income tax measures succeed in gathering enough signatures to place them on the ballot, a “no” vote will mean “yes, I support these tax increases,” and a “yes” vote will mean “no, I do not want these tax increases to take effect.”

Or maybe it will go like this: A “no” vote will mean “no, I do not want these taxes to be blocked by this referendum,” and a “yes” vote will mean “yes, I support the effort to stop these tax increases.”

Classic Orwellian Doublethink, courtesy of the Oregon Legislature.

This is the time, as Chuck Missler calls it, of the age of deceit. Is it any wonder Jesus warned “Take heed that no one deceive you”?

Do your own homework, and remember, the Bible calls you to be a skeptic. Not a cynic, but a skeptic.

Introduction

Throughout history, simple inquiries in science start firestorms of controversy. While we certainly don’t claim to be in the same league as Einstein (and his quantum theory), our simple query regarding evolution and the scientific evidence supporting it generate much response. As we’ve written before^[1], we seek simple answers to scientific questions using the scientific method. Nothing more, nothing less.

• Matter can come from nothing.
• Non-living material can become alive.
• Explosions produce order.
• Species change into another.

Nothing radical here, just basic foundational principles of evolution.

It’s important before continuing to establish exactly what science is, and the principle means of its advancement, the scientific method. Understanding the scientific method allows cutting through the fog, misplaced passion and personal attacks (which have no place in science).

We’ve mentioned previously a book by a “scholar” utterly lacking basic logical and Biblical analysis as a warning not to depend on Phd’s and other accolades to give credibility to some theory. Another book by that “renowned Bible scholar” has come under fire … by an atheist desperately trying to show no God exists, yet we’ll agree with the atheist the “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, in spite of their title.

Ehrman’s book is an engaging one, and his explanation of text criticism method invites no complaints. But his main thesis — that New Testament manuscripts have been changed so badly that we can’t know what the originals said about theologically important matters — is not only dead wrong, it is contradicted by Ehrman’s own writings for the scholarly community. Clearly, Christian scholars can be accused of telling one story in the scholarly community and telling another story to their flocks — but Ehrman is doing the same thing with Misquoting Jesus.

If one wants to undermine the reliability of the New Testament, one better not do it through textual criticism. The New Testament contains by far the best-attested and most reliably reconstructed texts of the ancient world.

The atheist notes this “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, contradicting himself in the process. As we continue to warn, be vary careful with those calling themselves “scholars” or with PhD’s and other titles behind their names. That means nothing save they’ve received accolades from others who think the same as they do — do your own homework as many “scholars” turn out to be completely wrong, and some don’t appear to even read the book they claim to be a scholar on.

On the reliability of the New Testament, this atheist agrees on the reliability of the Bible passed to us. For some reason, only “Christian” scholars doubt the reliability of the New Testament and seek to tear it apart. Skeptics generally accept the Bible as almost completely pure but find other faults, as he goes on to state:

Remember those charts from school detailing how birds evolved from dinosaurs? It turns out those are false:

ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight — and the finding means it’s unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

Those (in)famous charts turn out to be bogus — if any proof existed for them they wouldn’t find out later it’s completely wrong. Evolution lacks proof, and the textbooks presenting those charts of fish growing legs, birds from dinosaurs, and horses evolving are only hypothesis (guesses) — they don’t have proof.

This new discovery demonstrates a major oops in evolution — an error preached for decades as gospel truth. Why was it ever presented as anything more than a guess? Where is the scientific (repeatable, experimental data) evidence for evolutionary principles?

1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.

If any of those turn out to be false, evolution falls to the scrap heap. Yet they’ve all been assumed, simply because they’re required for evolution to occur. But that’s not science.

We’re posed this question for years, and have yet to see scientific data for them — remember the scientific method involves repeatable, experimental data. If you don’t have that, it’s not science — by definition.

Paul continues his correction of the Corinthian church discussing legalism --- a problem still existing in the church today. Some claim only certain songs are acceptable, certain methods of baptism, even certain topics of discussion.

To understand current events, you need to understand the two methods of analysis. While older generations used facts and logic, newer methods involve group-think and consensus, avoiding facts and deductive analysis. Problems for the church arise as concepts such as sin and hell shift to more "user-friendly" ideas, abandoning the firm foundation of God's Word for the shifting sand of man's ever-changing wisdom.

Our newsletter for June will be published in a few days --- if you're not signed up to receive it, visit http://www.dyeager.org/newsletter/ page to sign up! The monthly newsletter contains some items not appearing on the site, so don't miss out.

In John 14 Jesus says He'll do whatever we ask in His name. Since some requests go unanswered, either Jesus lied or we don't understand the condition "In Jesus name".

The question of why suffering exists has plagued man for centuries. What does the Bible have to say about suffering? Examine what a scholar has to say, and see if his arguments actually demonstrate scholarship, or a lack of proper research.

Audio commentary for 1 Corinthians chapter nine is now available. In chapter nine Paul accomplished two goals. First, giving a practical example from what he taught in the previous chapter, and second, answering the question of supporting the local pastor.

As a recent survey claims the United States is becoming less Christian, what does the future hold for the country? Is the country destined to become like Europe, or can the slide be halted?

What does tolerance really mean today? Be careful with your answer, as some people don't mean what everyone else does by tolerance - how can some people promoting "tolerance" be so intolerant of others? The answer comes from a book written long ago.

Beginning May 2009, Frames of Reference will publish a newsletter with news, Bible commentary, prophecy, science, and other topics relevant for today. Our goal is application to daily life and wisdom, not just knowledge. Knowledge can be easily acquired, while wisdom requires the proper *application* of that knowledge. To subscribe visit http://www.dyeager.org/newsletter/

Audio commentary for 1 Corinthians chapter eight is now available. In chapter eight Paul answers the legalist who fails to live by grace, and also provides advice for Christians living by grace who must handle their weaker legalistic brother without causing offense.