Popular Posts

Saturday, 7 April 2012

Pu Ruma Good Friday ti ti :


Pu Ruma Good Friday ti ti :
(Ktlangau 1982)


                December , 1980 kum kha Pathian thu awih hming ziak naa ka hming ka ziah luh ve kum ni a.
Masi hman nawn nana ka Sepa chal thawh kum anih bakah Mualkawi Ram kan bawh kum a nih kha. Ka Kutfarai Dei hman hmasakber kum ani bawk a, a ngihna ka hrelo mep mep khawp ah , engtin tak’ kut chu farai dei ang maw? Isua thihni alo ni bawk nen??
…… Ka lo pawng nghahhglelh ve em em ringawt a. Engtintak Kutfarai Dei chu lo thleng ang i maw….

                Zirtawpi zingah kher chuan kanin kan nu , Tuaki khan thlaichi  thlaka feh a tum mauh mai a.  Kan khap ngial pawn kanin khap zo ta lo. “Isua thihni a vaimim tih hi a kawm, a tha duh anti, ala tita  deu deu
 a”. Pathian ringlo tute vaimimin kawm hnih a neih a , Ringtu zawkten kawm khat chiah  kan thar te chuan , zah thlak dawn deuh asin” min ti vin hlur mai a. Feh tur chuan a chhuak taut a nghawng nghawng thova.

                Kei chuan sekhen han kawt chuar tep tawp leh phaipuan kekawr ngat leh savun pheikhawk tle ver vawr nen Biakin lam chu ka pan veta ngauh2 a, engtintak KUTFARAI DEI ANBG MAW?

                Biaki in kan thleng chuleh, “Enteh kalvari a thleng tak ngial dawn….” Tiin pawnpui saw rang tluk tlukin a lo zai a. Thenkhat kha chu Kalvari a thlen tak tak hlauvin an tap per pur hlawmin ka hria. Pulpitah chuan Mizo Pawn Dum an lo zar khup mai a, Dawhkanah lah chuan eng emawni hi an khuh var glun bawk a. Pasitawrin Isua tuarna thu an sawi meuh chu , A tlawr ngang aniang Nu ho hi an in sut tluar tluar a, Pasitawr ber pawh mittui nen hnaptui nen ative per pur mai.

                Thu sawi zawh chuan, Sakramen ngeimai chu an theh ta. Upa Kawla chuan a rawn sem phei thloh thloh a, sem kan hi a nei leh zoh thin roh nghe nghe a.Min semkan ve ang tih hlau lutuk chuan, a inrinloh lain kan ban sak thut mai  a. ani lah chuan ka kutah min hmer sak pah hian, : Dan chhungah ila awm ve lo,I chang ve thei lo” min ti ram hmuk ta mai, ava hrilhhai thlak duh tehreng e aw……


                Zan lam chu Thuhriltu tur pawh Lawr Pasi ngat (Lower Primarty) ani a, a sawi thiam ngei mai. A sawi zawng te hian Kalvari tlang te hi a lang uaih uaih mai a,. Chutia rinnaa Kalvari tlang kan lam hual tluk tluk lai chuan leh, Kan nu Tuaki ngeimai lam sawuh sawuh chu kava hmu tap hut mai,. A ni pui rouh an lam vet a hial chu Kut Farai Dei chu nawn ngei tlakah kangai ta hmiah mai a.

                Kut Farai Deiah uain leh chhang ka chan ve an han phallo khanglang ne, Dan chhunga kuh ve zai chu kan rel ta a. Vanneih thlak takin Upa Kawlan min zawt lo hlauh, Upa dangin min zawt ta mial a. “Pu Rum, enge Dan chhunga luh I chak chhan” min han ti dam duam mai a. “Kut Faraideia sakramen min chhuhsak leh kha chu thu hran, Min hriatrengnan heihi ti thin rawh u a tin a na na, rilrua hriat reng ngawt chu ka duhtawk lo, ataka chan ve ngei ka duh ani” Ka ti a. Tuaki chu an han zawt vet a ,” Lut lo rual ka ni lo kan pa reng hian a sawi ngun mai, a minawm zozai tawh” an ti hmuah mai thung a. Tichuan, kan pahnih chuan Dan chhungah chuan min lawm lut ve ta a.
               
                 

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

TRCH



Monday, 2 April 2012

Jesus Not Pagan Myth


Jesus’ Story Is An Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters
Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before.
The article claims that the Bible is not original, but the thing that’s not even remotely original is the article itself. There’s not anything that hasn’t been refuted many times over, and much of this information is available freely on the Internet for anyone who cares to do the research. We have a few articles on our site, for example, Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths? For much of this, I’m going to be referring you to resources on the Tekton Apologetics Ministry page, as there’s much more information on pagan parallels there. Some general background is available at: Was the story of Jesus stolen from pagan savior figures? More specific information on several of the alleged pre-Christs is available at Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths? For general information about the figures, I went to Wikipedia (not a site I generally recommend, but okay for really general information like this) and a few other sites that a Google search can easily bring up.
Here are some examples.
Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.
The term Soter was applied to Asklepios, an appellation that Christians argue only applies to Jesus. But ‘savior’ can mean many different things, and there is no indication that Asklepios was known as a savior in the same sense that Jesus is. Since he’s a god of medicine, and maybe a deification of an actual person who was a physician, we shouldn’t be surprised that he’s credited with healing people, and he is credited with raising Hippolytus from the dead, though he was killed for doing it and accepting gold for it.
A cut and paste job on ancient beliefs could have been applied to the life of Jesus no matter what actually happened. But superficial parallels aside, the claims of Christianity are unique.
In short, yes, there are some superficial similarities, but nothing substantial or unexpected, and certainly nothing that one could argue that Christians took from Asklepios-worship. Also, ancient mythology was rich and varied. It might be argued that they anticipated most possible situations. So a cut and paste job on ancient beliefs could have been applied to the life of Jesus no matter what actually happened. But superficial parallels aside, the claims of Christianity are unique.
Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother …
A god having sexual relations with a human woman is not a parallel for virgin birth, by definition. See also The Virginal Conception of Christ: Alleged pagan derivation.
… and was known as the savior of the world.
Like many Greek heroes and demigods, Hercules fought lots of battles, killed lots of bad guys, etc. He was credited with making the world safe for mankind because he killed many monsters. In exactly what sense do they mean he was the ‘savior of the world’? And I couldn’t find any record of the actual phrase “savior of the world” being used of him.
Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him.
I couldn’t find any accounts of prophets foretelling Hercules’s birth, or that he would be a king. The closest I could find relates toHeracles (not the same person as Heracles is the Greek hero from whom the Roman Hercules is derived). According to the Greek legend, Heracles’ mother Alcmene was simultaneously pregnant with Heracles by Zeus and his half brother Iphicles by her husband. Knowing that Heracles would be a descendant of Perseus, Hera tricked Zeus into vowing that the next-born descendant of Perseus would be High King. Zeus did so thinking that Heracles would be born next, but Hera made the goddess of childbirth delay Heracles’ birth while causing another descendant of Perseus to be born prematurely.
The ‘leader who wanted to kill him’ is Hera, Zeus’s jealous wife. Hardly counts as a parallel with Jesus.
He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.”
I was unable to find any reference to Heracles or Hercules walking on water, or anything that could reasonably be interpreted as close to walking on water. His mother isn’t even present at the version of his death I was able to find, and I wasn’t able to find anything approximating ‘it is finished’ in the death story, either.
Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, …
So was every member of the pantheon and all the demigods who resulted from Zeus’s numerous trysts. Hardly a comparison with Jesus.
… was born of a virgin mother, …
Nope, a result of divine fornication, as with Zeus’s other kids.
… and was commonly depicted riding a donkey.
So because other figures ride donkeys, Jesus can’t? That’s a trivial comparison. And the symbolism of the donkey is hardly the same.
He healed the sick and turned water to wine.
I was unable to find any healing attributed to Dionysus, and he was the god of the vine, but I couldn’t find any accounts of him turning water into wine.
He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal.
Depending on which myth is under consideration, he either was reincarnated or didn’t die—in the most common version, his mother is killed, leaving the fetal Dionysus behind. Zeus sews the fetus into his thigh and carries him until he is ready to be born. And a lot of the demigods eventually became immortal, but the idea of true bodily resurrection was repugnant to Greeks, which is why Paul had to straighten out the Corinthian Church regarding the resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15 and The Resurrection and Genesis).
His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.
I can find no connection between his death and delivering humanity. He was known as a bringer of peace, but this had more to do with him bringing wine and festivals with him.
Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, …
He was the son of Geb and Nut. Again, not a virgin birth.
… was considered the first true king of the people, …
Osiris was known as the ‘king of the living’ sometimes, but that’s hardly surprising, and hardly a parallel for the Messianic role that Jesus claimed.
… and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
There are two events in Osiris’ life which could be said to be resuscitations of sorts. First, after Osiris was killed, his wife Isis used a spell to temporarily bring him back from the dead long enough to become pregnant by him (and so we get Horus, who I’ll address below). She hid his body, but when his brother (who murdered him) found the body, he tore it into 14 pieces, 13 of which Isis gathered together and bandaged for a proper burial. The other gods were impressed by her devotion and brought him back to life and made him the god of the underworld.
As with most of these ‘parallels’, simply telling the stories that are the alleged parallels is enough to refute the idea that the story of Jesus is based on them in any sense.
Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.
There’s absolutely no evidence for any of this in any reputable source. The burden of proof is therefore on those that make these claims to document them.
Mithra’s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
A lot of Mithraism post-dates Christianity, and there is legitimate cross-pollination, but it’s Mithraism borrowing from Christianity, not the other way around. The only way that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism was in art. Third and fourth century Christians took the Mithraic images of Mithra slaying the bull and shooting arrows at a rock to get water out of it, and made lookalikes of Samson killing the lion and Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. See the Tekton article: Was the story of Jesus stolen from that of the Persian deity Mithra?
Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
Who actually thinks people in Palestine had significant contact with Hinduism, much less that they’d model their Savior on very foreign pagan deities? Krishna’s ‘miraculous conception’ is his mom being impregnated by ‘mental transmission’ from his completely human father. No wise men or stars that I was able to find. Rulers trying to kill babies that might grow up to threaten them is a common theme. No shepherds that I can find, and the function of mediator is also one that I couldn’t find explicitly brought out. Although both ‘mediator’ and ‘god’ take on very different meanings when one realizes that we’re dealing with a polytheistic religion.
Buddha’s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior.
I found no indication of this. Maya dreamed that a white elephant with six tusks entered her side, and ten months later gave birth. In any case, Buddhism doesn’t have a ‘savior’; Buddha is supposed to have shown the way to ‘Nirvana’, freedom from the endless reincarnational cycles of death and rebirth into a suffering world.
As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him.
As a child, he was shielded from religion because he was destined to be a great prince, but the Brahmins prophesied that he would choose a religious life over political office.
He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age …
29 to be exact.
… and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed.
He had 2 chief disciples, eleven great disciples, and ten lay disciples. Which 12? I couldn’t find any reference to twelve disciples. His last words that I can find were instructing his attendant to convince Cunda that his death had nothing to do with the meal he offered to him.
One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor.
Pretty much everyone will have a favourite out of a group of people, and disciples betraying their masters is also a common theme.
He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors.
Asceticism and this form of teaching were quite common. But are there any substantial similarities in the particulars of any of that teaching?
He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”.
No evidence of the first one that I could find, and the last three are so vague as to be useless in ascertaining any connection between the two.
He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.
General miracle working is vague and practically ubiquitous in all religious traditions. The story about the disciple walking on water has minimal similarity with the story of Peter.
The legend follows:
SOUTH of Savatthi is a great river, on the banks of which lay a hamlet of five hundred houses. Thinking of the salvation of the people, the World-honored One resolved to go to the village and preach the doctrine. Having come to the riverside he sat down beneath a tree, and the villagers seeing the glory of his appearance approached him with reverence; but when he began to preach, they believed him not.
When the world-honored Buddha had left Savatthi Sariputta felt a desire to see the Lord and to hear him preach. Coming to the river where the water was deep and the current strong, he said to himself: “This stream shall not prevent me. I shall go and see the Blessed One, and he stepped upon the water which was as firm under his feet as a slab of granite. When he arrived at a place in the middle of the stream where the waves were high, Sariputta’s heart gave way, and he began to sink. But rousing his faith and renewing his mental effort, he proceeded as before and reached the other bank.
The people of the village were astonished to see Sariputta, and they asked how he could cross the stream where there was neither a bridge nor a ferry. Sariputta replied: “I lived in ignorance until I heard the voice of the Buddha. As I was anxious to hear the doctrine of salvation, I crossed the river and I walked over its troubled waters because I had faith. Faith. nothing else, enabled me to do so, and now I am here in the bliss of the Master’s presence.”
The World-honored One added: “Sariputta, thou hast spoken well. Faith like thine alone can save the world from the yawning gulf of migration and enable men to walk dryshod to the other shore.” And the Blessed One urged to the villagers the necessity of ever advancing in the conquest of sorrow and of casting off all shackles so as to cross the river of worldliness and attain deliverance from death. Hearing the words of the Tathagata, the villagers were filled with joy and believing in the doctrines of the Blessed One embraced the five rules and took refuge in his name.
But the earliest account of Buddha’s life was written in the second century AD, far too late for Christianity to be copied from it. Indeed, by that time this legend might be copied from Christianity.
Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”. 
The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.
The only valid point of comparison between Apollonius and Jesus is that they both performed miracles. And the stories of Apollonius were written no earlier than 217 AD. See more in this Tekton article.
Logic Sets In
Many are familiar with Occam’s Razor, which states that, all things being equal, one should not seek complex explanations when more simple ones are available.
The gross inaccuracies contained in the above show that all things aren’t equal. And this source hasn’t even considered the social and religious dynamics which would preclude a Jewish sect from adapting pagan religious stories to their new first-century AD religion. For example, there are at least 17 factors that meant Christianity could not have succeeded in the ancient world, unless it were backed up with irrefutable proof of the Resurrection, as shown in The Impossible Faith.
No one disputes that these other stories predate the Judeo-Christian Bible, …
Really? The Mithra stories that most closely parallel Jesus are after Him. Apollonius’ biography wasn’t written until the third century, and Buddha’s was in the second century (six centuries after the events it reports).
… so we really only have two options:
The religious explanation is that while the other stories were very much the same as those in the Bible, they are all false.
No, our explanation is that those myths aren’t even very similar to the Gospels. And the places there are superficial similarities are exactly where we would expect to find them, but in the particulars, Christianity is unique (the only one with a genuinely virgin birth, genuine resurrection, some unique miracles).
And even if the stories did predate Jesus, this would not necessarily mean that the Jesus narratives were false (this would commit the genetic fallacy). Yet when we carefully analyze these particular claims, we see that there is little to no documented evidence that Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan religions. Thus, the pendulum swings strongly in the opposite direction from where the article writer wants it.
But when they occur in the Bible (despite it being much the same content), this time the stories are true.
I don’t say that a story is true just because it appears in the Bible (there are some stories, parables, which are in the Bible but aren’t historical; the Bible never presents them as such), and I don’t reject something just because it doesn’t appear in the Bible (some of the extra-biblical myths may have their source in a distorted history). But unlike the myths, we have solid evidence that the Bible presents a trustworthy historical account. For instance, the Gospels present four different accounts that corroborate each other (and contrary to many assertions, the Gospels can be harmonized). Acts corroborates parts of Paul’s letters. And in the Old Testament, we’ve found evidence of many people groups, places, and events that were only previously known from Scripture, and hence many had doubted the Bible’s accuracy. See for example articles like A former chief magistrate examines the witnesses to the resurrection and Easter’s earliest creed.
One explanation of the resemblances to the earlier myths is that Satan created them to lead people astray from the true Messiah that would come much later. So essentially, an ultra-powerful and evil being (Created by God) influenced humanity to create deceptive stories—thousands of years before the real version—so that people wouldn’t believe the real thing when they saw it.
Some of them may be directly satanic, some may be distorted ancestor worship, some may be the product of visions/hallucinations. I don’t really care that much about where they came from. What does it matter? These skeptics need to deal with the Gospel’s truth claims, not resort to history-free diversions.
The alternative explanation is that the nature of storytelling during the period was such that central themes propagated through time. This combined with the natural tendency to have certain repeating elements in human stories, and the fact that the Bible stories came after the other ones, explains the similarities to previous myths.
There are central themes, and these are precisely the ones we find echoed in all the stories (attempted murder of the infant prince by jealous adversary, miracle-working teacher, tragic death, living on in some sense). But again, in the particulars, Christianity is unique. There is no comparison to Christianity.
A common feature of all these alleged pagan derivations is the huge time gap of many centuries between the person and the legends. Conversely, the Gospels were written by people who knew Jesus personally, or by those who knew such people personally.
This is probably also a good place to bring out another thing that makes Christianity unique. People said that Heracles, Dionysus, etc., did all these things, but no one claimed to be eyewitnesses of these things. A common feature of all these alleged pagan derivations is the huge time gap of many centuries between the person and the legends. Conversely, the Gospels were written by people who knew Jesus personally, or by those who knew such people personally (see Gospel Dates and Reliability). The first people to spread the Gospel said, in essence, “Jesus did miracles, taught, was crucified and raised from the dead, and we saw it!” This is the crucial difference. Christianity started at a time when if it weren’t true, the Jewish authorities should have been able to drag the corpse from the tomb, if there still was a corpse (and they would have had no qualms about doing so).
And since the stories of worldwide floods, virgin births, and people rising from the dead that the Bible is based on were false to begin with (which everyone agrees on)—they are also false in the Bible.
The worldwide flood stories (where did we go from ‘Christ copycats’ to flood stories?) are all based on the same historical event, which the Bible records accurately. And that is particularly appalling logic. So if A, B, and C lie about having done a certain thing, D can’t be telling the truth? Does the existence of counterfeit money disprove real money?
In short, the Bible is simply another iteration of the same themes that came long before it.
Which of these two explanations makes more sense to you?
The first is a strawman and the second literally makes no sense. I prefer our explanation to either of them.
Republished on Freethoughtpedia.com with permission by Daniel Meissler[1].
Hopefully that’s a pseudonym, because he should be ashamed of such nonsense; and the Freethought people were too sloppy even to get his name right.
It’s only rank ignorance, both of the social world of early Christianity, and of the particulars of those other religions, that allows things like this to survive. It’s hard to decide whether to counter these with serious arguments like the above, or with hysterical laughter. They want us to question our faith, and this is the best they have to offer?
In short, only someone who hasn’t done his homework would ever reject Christianity on the basis of pagan parallels. Christianity has been shown to be historically reliable, and to reflect events that actually happened. Even the Jewish opponents of Jesus had to explain away the empty tomb somehow. The pastor’s son, being an agnostic, questions Christianity. That’s okay; our faith will withstand scrutiny if he’s open to answers. But he should equally question this swill he’s swallowing, because if he questions his sources at the most basic level as I’ve done here, they won’t withstand the examination.


Did God create over billions of years?

And why is it important?

Published: 6 October 2011(GMT+10)
Death painGeologic-time
Often, people challenge biblical creationists with comments along the lines of, “I believe God created, and I don’t believe in evolution, but He could have taken billions of years, so what’s the big deal about the age of the earth?” Some claim that an emphasis on ‘6 literal days, 6,000 years ago’ even keeps people away from the faith, so “Why be so dogmatic? Why emphasize something so strongly that’s not a salvation issue?”
It might come as a surprise that we agree—to a point. The timescale in and of itself is not the important issue. So why does CMI emphasize it? It’s important because the issue ultimately comes down to, “Does the Bible actually mean what it plainly says?” It therefore goes to the heart of the trustworthiness of Scripture. As such, compromising with long ages also severely undermines the whole gospel message, thus creating crises of faith for many as well as huge problems with evangelism.

The implications of a long-age timescale

The idea of millions or billions of years simply is not found anywhere in Scripture; it is a concept derived from outside of the Bible.
First, we need to understand where the concept of an old earth came from. The idea of millions or billions of years simply is not found anywhere in Scripture; it is a concept derived from outsideof the Bible. In 1830, Charles Lyell, a Scottish lawyer, released his book Principles of Geology. He stated that one of his aims was “To free the science [of geology] from Moses.”1 He built his ideas upon those of another geologist, James Hutton, who advocated a uniformitarian interpretation of the world’s geology. Lyell argued that the thousands of feet of sedimentary layers (laid down by water or some other moving fluid) all over the earth were the result of long, slow, gradual processes over millions or billions of years (instead of the processes of Noah’s Flood). He believed that processes observed in the present must be used to explain the geological history of the earth. So, if we currently see rivers laying down sediment at an average rate of say 1 mm (4/100thof an inch) per year, then a layer of sedimentary rock such as sandstone which is 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) thick must have taken about a million years to form. This ‘present is the key to the past’ assumption (and its variants) is a cornerstone of modern geology. It involves a rejection of the biblical account of a global watery cataclysm. The millions of years assigned to the various layers in the ‘geological column’ were adopted long before the advent of radiometric dating methods—well before radioactivity was even discovered.
Image by Daniel Smartt
But here’s the theological problem. Those rock layers don’t just have rocks or granules in them. They contain fossils. And these fossils are indisputable evidence of death—and not just of death, but carnivory, disease and suffering. There are remains that have tooth marks in them, and even animals fossilized in the process of eating other animals. There is evidence of disease, cancers, and infection; and general suffering from wounds, broken bones, etc. Biblically, we understand these things only began to happen after the Fall. But because of the Bible’s detailed genealogies, there’s no way for the biblical Adam to exist millions of years ago, before death and suffering started happening in the uniformitarian time scale. The implication of long-age belief is that God ordained death before the Fall of man, but the Bible clearly states that it was Adam’s actions that brought death into the world (Romans 5:12).

The god of an old earth

The idea that death was in creation before the Fall has major implications for the character of God. The same problem arises if one thinks that God used evolution to create. Evolution is a random and wasteful process that requires millions of ‘unfit’ organisms to die. Countless transitional forms would have arisen, only to fall as casualties in the great march ‘forward’. At some point, this allegedly ‘good’ God-ordained lottery of death finally resulted in humans, and then God looked at His image-bearers, standing on top of layers upon layers of rocks filled with the remains of billions of dead things, and proclaimed His whole creation—along with the evidence of all the death and suffering that went into creating it—to be ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31). So we can see that long ages don’t fit in the biblical view, whether or not someone believes in evolution along with it.
Death pain
At the end of day 6 God pronounced his finished creation as very good. If evolution were true , would Adam and Eve have been standing on a fossil graveyard of death and struggle over millions of years that God called good. The Bible describes death as the last enemy to be destroyed
To summarize, the age of the earth was derived from the rock layers, which have fossils in them, which puts death, suffering and disease before the Fall. The Bible is clear that there was no death before Adam (Romans 5:12).

The gospel of an old earth

Some alleged ‘experts’ try to sidestep this ‘very good’ issue by saying that the Fall only caused human death and disease. This cannot be true. For one thing, Romans 8:19–22 clearly teaches that the curse of death and suffering following Adam’s Fall affected “the whole creation”, i.e. the entire physical universe.
But even if we set that aside for the sake of argument, there is another problem, because we have human remains that are ‘dated’ as hundreds of thousands of years old. This is well before any possible biblical date for Adam, which places him in the Garden about 6,000 years ago. Many compromising positions see these remains as those of ‘pre-Adamites’—soulless non-human animals. But these skeletons fall within the normal range of human variation. And Neandertals, for example, show signs of art, culture and even religion. And recently, the sequencing of actual Neandertal DNA shows that many of us carry Neandertal genes—i.e. we are the same created kind. To call them ‘non-human animals’ seems entirely contrived to salvage the long-age belief system.
Also, Romans 5:12 states that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned”. It gives no indication that the Fall caused only human death. To distort the interpretation of Romans 5 to say that death was limited to humans would mean that Adam’s sin only brought a partial Fall to God’s creation; yet Romans 8:19–20 tells us the whole creation groans under the weight of sin and is subjected to futility. And Genesis 3:17–19 tells us that the very ground was cursed so that it produced thorns and thistles.2 If only a partial Fall occurred, then why will God destroy all creation to bring about a new one instead of a partial restoration? Why not just restore humans if the rest of creation is still “very good”?
If only a partial Fall occurred, then why will God destroy all creation to bring about a new one instead of a partial restoration? Why not just restore humans if the rest of creation is still ‘very good’?

Death the last enemy

A central part of the gospel is that death is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). Death intruded into a perfect world because of sin, and it is so serious that Jesus’ victory over death cannot be entirely manifested while there is a single believer in the grave. Are we expected to believe that something the Bible authors described as an enemy was used or overseen by God for millions of years and was called ”very good”?
A major part of the gospel is the hope we have in this Resurrection and restoration of the creation to its original perfect state. The Bible is clear about the New Heavens and Earth as a place where there is no carnivory, no death, no suffering, and no sin (Isaiah 65:17–25;Revelation 21:1–5). But how can this be called a restoration if such a state never existed?
An evolutionist Anglican priest gave a good summary of what accepting death before the Fall means for Christian theology:
“ … Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Homo Sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God’s punishment for Sin? The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. … On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumor, or simply being eaten by other creatures. From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil [sic] changed the nature of the universe. God made the world as it is … evolution as the instrument of change and diversity. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spiritually, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching.”3
The Bible is clear about the New Creation as a place where there is no carnivory, no death, no suffering, and no sin. But how can this be a restoration if such a state never existed?
So, one can now see the slippery slope that ensues if we allow for billions of years with or without evolution, because it puts death and suffering before the Fall. Its logical corollary is that it also places evil before the Fall (which no longer exists in his view, as such, since there was nowhere to fall from). And in the process it rules out the hope of a return to a perfect state, since there can be no return to what never was. The gospel itself has been destroyed in the process.
So what did Jesus come to save us from, if not death, suffering, sin, and separation from God? What do we do with passages like Hebrews 9:22, which says “ … the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”, if death and bloodshed were occurring as ‘natural’ processes for millions of years before Adam? The death of Christ becomes insignificant and unable to pay for our sins. And what is our hope if it is not in the Resurrection and the New Heavens and Earth?
If death is natural, why do we mourn it so? Why can we not accept death as a ‘normal’ part of life? This view robs the gospel of its power and Jesus’ sacrifice of its significance. Following the thought to its natural conclusion has led many people to abandon the Christian faith altogether.

The effect on the church

Practically every Christian leader and theologian who lays out his reasons for believing in long ages rather than the biblical timescale has to admit that Genesis—when read at face value, in the Hebrew as well as the English translations—teaches a straightforward creation in six normal-length days.
The widespread teaching of evolution has dire consequences for our youth, who are leaving the church in droves. Christians who ‘hang in there’ but accept a billions-of-years timescale will have a much harder time defending their faith, and thus, this affects church growth. One of the major stumbling blocks to faith is the question: “Why does a good God allow all the death and suffering in the world?” Such believers cannot adequately explain the origin of death and suffering as a reaction to human sin.
Conversely, believers who have a biblical view of the world’s history have a logical platform for introducing God to people with no scriptural background. Incidentally, this was precisely the approach that Paul used when preaching to similar Gentile audiences (Acts 14:15–17; 17:23–31). In Lystra, he used creation as a key identifying factor that set God apart from mere men like himself and Barnabas. And in Athens he took the philosophers and stoics of the day ‘back to Genesis’ to lay a foundation to introduce them to the true God in the hope that they would repent from their useless idolatry.
If belief in the Bible as plainly written strengthens one’s ability to explain the gospel, and compromise can have such damaging effects, why would anyone compromise? Practically every Christian leader and theologian who lays out his reasons for believing in long ages rather than the biblical timescale has to admit that Genesis—when read at face value, in the Hebrew as well as the English translations—teaches a straightforward creation in six normal-length days. And that this is powerfully backed up by Exodus 20:11, part of the Ten Commandments, which shows the Genesis days were understood as normal-length days, with no room for millions of years or gaps in the text to insert them. But they unfortunately accept that science has somehow ‘proved’ millions of years, which is actually not the case.

Inconsistent Christianity?

While it is possible to be a Christian and believe in an old earth, it would indicate that one has either not thought through the consequences, or that the Bible is not the ultimate authority for one’s faith. If Genesis is not real literal history, how can one know where the truth actually does begin in Scripture? Today’s ‘science’ also ‘proves’ that men don’t rise from the dead. So if we allow that same science to tell us that Jesus has not risen from the dead (which would be consistent in the compromiser’s worldview) then our “preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain,” as the Apostle Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15:14). Placing our trust in man-made philosophies is reminiscent of the man that Jesus described in Matthew 7:26 when He said: “But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.” Conversely, in verses 24–25 He stated: “everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.”
And because Jesus clearly believed in a literal historical Genesis, so should we.

Sunday, 26 February 2012

FANGHMIR


FANGHMIR

VANLALPEKA PACHUAU –  
                   
              Tuk khat chu  Saihmarthur sen hlar mai, mahni tawka taksa inphut tha leh thahrui pawh ngah hmel tak hian. A taksa let tam tak aia sei leh rit tih hriat tak, hmunphiah kuang hi harsa ti fahran hian a lo pu tawk tawk reuhva. A hmelah pawh a chauh pui hle tih hai rual a ni lo.

            Hahchawlh a mamawh tlat, Zo thlifim tleh heuh heuh in chhem daih tir heuh heuh pah hian. A phur  rih zia leh a hmabak kawng thui zia chu a ngaih tuah neuh neuh a. Hetiang teh hrep ai chuan kut ruaka kal mai a duh ta rum rum a. Mahse hmabak beiseina sangtak nen theih tawp chhuahin a kalpui leh ta zawk a. A hmaah chuan lei a lo khi chat ta ruah mai, hel turin a chhehvel chu tuihawkin a khat vek bawk si. Engtinnge nita ang? Engahnge  a thil phurh sei tak hmang chuan a kal kai mai lohvang. Theihtawp chhuahin  a phurrit tak chu a dawh kai ta a, awlsam takin ral lehlam chu a thleng ta a. Hahdam takin a chennaah chuan a chawl  ta veng veng a  .
           
              Chawlhna nuam Kristaa chawl tur chuan phurrit phurhhi a trul a, chu ngei chu kan tan malsawmna alo nizawk thin.

NUN MAMAWH CHHANNA... Cont


Pathian vaukhanna .

* A chhia leh a tha hriatna thing rah erawh hi chu i ei tur a ni lo: i ei chuan i ei ni la lain i thi ngei tur a ni," tiin thu a pe a.
 (Genesis 2:17)

* Thil i tih that chuan lawm i hlawh dawn lo vem ni? i tih that loh erawh chuan sual chu kawngka bulah a bawk reng a ni: a duhzawng
chu nangma hnen lam a ni ang a, a chungah thu i nei tur a ni,” a ti a. (Genesis 4:7)

* In hmaah nunna leh thihna, malsawmna leh anchhia ka dah tih tunah hian in chungchang thua hretu atan lei leh van ka ko a ni;
chutichuan nunna chu thlang rawh u, in nun theih nan, nangni leh inthlahte nen; (Deuteronomy 30:19)

* Ka ko che u a, in duh lo va, Ka kut ka phar a, tuman in ngaisang lo va; Chuvangin kei pawh in vanduai ni chuan ka nui ang a, In
hlauh hun a lo thlen chuan ka nuihsan ang che u, (Thufingte 1:24)

* Zilhhau fo pawha a ring tikhawng tlat chu Vawilehkhatah tihtliahin a awm ang a, tihdamna a awm lo vang. (Thufingte 29:1)

* Tihnuam tak leh thu awih taka in awm chuan, in rama thil thate hi in ei ang: nimahsela in duh lova in hel chuan, khandaihin a ei zo
vang che u: LALPA ka chuan chu chu a sawi tawh a ni," a ti a. (Isaia 1:19-20)

* I suahsualna chuan a tuartir ang chia, I hnung tawlh thinna chuan a zilhhau vang che; Mi tihna nei lova LALPA i pathian i kalsan hi,
Thil sual tak leh kha tak a ni tih hi, Lo hre chhuak la, hmu fiah tawh rawh, tih hi Lalpa, Sipaihote LALPA thu chhuak a ni.
(Jeremia 2:19)

* Chuvangin an hnenah chuan, LALPA PATHIAN chuan heti hian a ti a ni:'Ka thu engmah hi khek a ni lo vang a, ka thusawi apiang
chu hlenin a awm zel zawk ang,' tih hi LALPA PATHIAN thu chhuak a ni tiin hrilh rawh," a ti a (Ezekiela 12:28)

*  Chuvangin, Aw Israel, I chungah hetiangin ka ti ang: I chungah hei hi ka tih dawn avangin, Aw Israel, I Pathian tawk turin inpeih
rawh. (Amosa 4:12)

* Sipaihote LALPA chuan heti hian a ti: In kawngte chhut ngun rawh u. (Hagaia 1:7)

* Bumin awm suh u; Pathian chu hmuhsit zia a ni lo ve; miin a theh apiang, chu mi vek chu a seng bawk dawn si a; (Galatia 6:7)

*  “Phuba reng reng keima lak tur a ni, keiman ka thungrul ang,” tih leh, “Lalpa chuan a mite a ngaihtuah ang,” ti lehtu chu kan hre si
a. (Hebrai 10:30)

* I luhlul leh i thinlung khauh avangin, thinurna leh Pathian rorelna fel tak lo lanna ni atan chuan, i chungah thinurna i inkhawl khawm
chawp a ni. Pathian chuan mi tin an thiltih ang zelin a relsak ang; (Rom 2:5)

* Mi thenkhatin muanga an ruat angin Lalpa chu a thutiam kawngah chuan a muang lo ve; tuma boral duh lova, mi zawng zawng lo
sim duhin, nangmahni lamah a dawhthei a ni zawk e.( II Petera 3:9)

* Tuman thu lawi lo maiin bum che u suh se; chung thil avang chuan Pathian thinur chu awih lo fate chungah a thleng si thin a.
(Ephesi 5:6)

* Amaherawhchu, tupawh heng mi ringtu mi tete zinga pakhat pawh titlu apiang chu, an nghawngah buh rawt sawmna lung lianpui
awrhtirin tuifinriat thuk laiah thlak daih sela an tan a sawt zawk ang. (Matthaia 18:6)



Ringtute chhungril nun.

* Nun tam  - Ruk hmang chu, ru tur leh tihlum tur leh tichhe tur lo chuan a lo kal lo; kei zawng nun an neih nan, tam taka an neih nan,
lo kal ka ni. (Johana 10:10)    

* Nungchang mawi   - Lalte leh thuneitute laka intulut tur te, thu awih tur te, thil tha tinreng tiha inpeih tur te, tumah sawichhe lo tur
te, kawhmawh bawl lo tur te, mi zawng zawng laka thuhnuairawlhna tinreng tilanga nunnem turtein anmahni hriat chhuahtir leh rawh. (Tita 3:1,2)

* Nun thianghlim   - Chutichuan, duh takte u, chung thutiam chu kan neih avangin, tisa leh thlarau bawlhhlawhna zawng zawngah i
intifai ang u, Pathian tih dek chunga thianghlimna tifamkimin. (II Korinth 7:1)

* Lungawina   - Pathian ngaihsakna hi lungawina tel zawngin hlawkna nasa tak a ni reng a ni. (I Timothea 6:6)

* Huaisenna - LALPA chu nghak reng rawh; Chak takin awm la, i thinlung chu intihuai rawh se; A ni, LALPA chu nghak reng rawh. (Sam 27:14)

*  Krista tan a  tuar -                Krista tuarnaahte tuarpuitute in nihzia ang zelin lawm zawk rawh u; chutichuan a ropuina a lo lan hunah chuan
nangni pawh hlim takin in lawm thei ang. I Petera 4:13
                                > Krista Isua sipai tha tak angin hrehawm mi tuarpui rawh. (II Timothea 2:3)

* Rinawmna -           Keiniho hi Krista rawngbawltuah leh Pathian thuruk enkawltuah miin min ngai rawh se. Hetah hian enkawltu chu mi rinawm nih a ngai bawk a ni. (I Korinth 4:1)

* Khawngaihna leh ngaihdamna  - Tin, inkhawngaih tawna lainatna neiin awm ula, Pathianin Kristaa a ngaidam che u ang bawkin inngaidam tawn rawh u. (Ephesi 4:32)

* Engthawlna -         “Rilrua retheite chu an eng a thawl e; van ram an ta a ni si a. (Matthaia 5:3-12)

* LALPAA lawmna -               Lalpaah chuan lawm fo rawh u: ka ti leh pek thin ang, lawm rawh u. (Philippi 4:4)

* Hmangaihna   -     Tin, ani chuan, “Lalpa i Pathian chu i thinlung zawng zawngin, i thlarau zawng zawngin, i chakna zawng zawngin, i rilru zawng zawngin i hmangaih tur a ni,’ ‘Nangmah i inhmangaih angin i vengte pawh i hmangaih tur a ni,’ tih hi,” a ti a, a chhang a. (Luka 10:27)

* Chhelna -              Tin, chuti chauh chu ni lovin, kan hrehawmnaah pawh lawmin i awm ang u, hrehawmna chuan chhelna a siam a, chhelna chuan hriatfiahna a siam a, hriatfiahna chuan beiseina a siam tih kan hre si a; (Rom 5:3-4 )
                               
>Tin, Lalpa chuan in thinlungte chu Pathian hmangaihnaah leh Krista chhelnaah chuan hruai lut rawh se. (II Thessalonika 3:5)

* Thlamuanna -        “Thlamuanna ka hnutchhiah a che u; keima thlamuanna ka pe a che u; khawvelin a pek angin ka pek loh che u hi. In thinlung mangang suh se, hlauh pawh hlau suh se. (Johana 14:27)
                               
> Kan Lalpa Isua Krista Pathian leh Pa, khawngaihnate Pa leh thlamuanna zawng zawng Pathian chu fakin awm rawh se. (II Korinth 1:3)
                               
> Heng thu hi in hnenah ka sawi tawh hi, keimahah hian in thlamuanna turin. Khawvelah hian hrehawmin in awm thin; nimahsela thlamuang takin awm rawh u, keiin khawvel ka ngam ta,” a ti a. (Johana 16:33)

* Rilru thianghlim -                  A tawp berah chuan unaute u, a dik apiang te, a zahawm apiang te, a fel apiang te, a thianghlim apiang te, a duhawm apiang te, a thangmawi apiangte – thatna reng a awm a, fakna reng a awm phawt chuan – chung chu ngaihtuah rawh u. (Philippi 4:8)
                               
> Nimahsela, tleirawl chaknate chu tlansan la, thinlung thianghlima Lalpa lam apiangte zingah chuan felna te, rinna te, hmangaihna te, remna te um ve rawh. (II Timothea 2:22)

* Nghehna -             Chuvangin ka unau duh takte u, nghet takin, tihchet rual lohvin Lalpa hna thahnemngai taka thawk fovin awm rawh u, in thawhrimna chu Lalpaah chuan a thlawn ngai lo tih in hre si a. (I Korinth 15:58)

* Hnehna -               Nimahsela kan Lalpa Isua Krista zara hnehna min petu Pathian hnenah chuan lawmthu awm rawh se.
(I Korinth 15:57)
                               
> Chutichuan he tawih thei hian tawih theih lohna a sin a, he thi thei hian thih theih lohna a sin hunah, chu mi hun ngeiah chuan, “Hnehnain thihna a lem zo ta,” tih thu ziak hi a lo thleng ang. (I Korinth 15:54)

* Nun danglam -       He khawvel dan ang hian awm suh ula; Pathian duhzawng, a tha leh lawm tlak leh, that famkim chu in hriatfiah theih nan, in rilru athara awmin lo danglam zawk tawh rawh u. (Rom 12:2)

* Nun tak -              Anni chu thutakin tithianghlim rawh, i thu chu thutak a ni. (Johana 17:17)
                                > Unaute lo kalin i takzia (thutaka i awm thinzia chu) min rawn hriattir lai khan ka lawm em em si a.
(III Johana 3)
                               
> Ka fate thutakah an awm tih ka hriat aliama lawmna nasa zawk reng ka nei lo ve.( III Johana 4)
                               
> Fel lohnaah a lawm lo va, thutak erawh chu a lawmpui thin a;( I Korinth 13:6)