- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by RJHindsHere are some considerations from a related link:
Do you have any information for us that would disprove what he claims?
1. The author of this theory is a missionary.
2. Many Chinese characters can be interpreted so that you see whatever you want. It's like looking at clouds. However, there do exist particular interpretations that are probably correct -- ones that reflect the intentions of the character's maker. Etymological dictionaries can be researched to find these correct interpretations, which are derived from studies of character evolvement over time. The fact that I've seen many characters whose standard etymological interpretations conflict with Kang's suggests to me that Kang may have conjured many interpretations out of his own volition. Admittedly, some of the interpretations seem very convincing; however, some others are just laughable.
3. Flood stories and tree-based creation stories are found in many cultures besides Hebrew. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html has a giant collection of flood myths. We see similarities in myths across the world. So even if some of Kang's interpretations are valid, that does not necessarily indicate a correlation to the Hebrew myth in particular. It shows a correlation to myths in general.
4. Lambs are also considered sacrificial in some other cultures besides Hebrew and Chinese. For instance, the Sidama religion of Ethiopia.
5. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
unquote.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/chinese/bible.shtml
Admittedly, these are not strong counterarguments and #2 would take study by someone versed in the language.
Edit: Here is another, lengthy critique for those interested:
http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
and a Snopes discussion board:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=001099;p=0
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by RBHILLRBHILL, I have not looked at the website. But I would say that years ago I was told by Chinese Christians about characters in the Chinese language which when analyzed seemed to represent pictures reminiscent of things written in the book of Genesis.
The Evidence of Genesis in the
Chinese Language
http://www.jdaniellowe.com/china.html
The people who explained some of these things were not Western missionaries but Chinese from either Taiwan or that part of the globe.
It should be remembered that many of the brightest eastern students come from the Chinese population either from the mainland or Taiwan. Many became Christians. And it should not be thought unusual at all that we could learn something from them about the validity of the Christian faith.
The Gospel is not a "Western" product but a product from God. I never considered that what these Chinese Christians enthusiastically pointed out to me was not the product of their own realizations about the truth of the Bible as telling a universal story.
I am always cautious of evangelical hype. But sometimes, remove the latter sensationalist hype, and there is some grain of truth there. Chinese people first told me of these pictures in the letters of their own language.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipWas your introduction to the idea prior to 1979? One of the links I found indicates the first published work on this idea was "The discovery of Genesis: how the truths of Genesis were found hidden in the Chinese language" by C. H. Kang, Ethel R. Nelson, 1979.
RBHILL, I have not looked at the website. But I would say that years ago I was told by Chinese Christians about characters in the Chinese language which when analyzed seemed to represent pictures reminiscent of things written in the book of [b]Genesis.
The people who explained some of these things were not Western missionaries but Chinese from eith ...[text shortened]... ruth there. Chinese people first told me of these pictures in the letters of their own language.[/b]
edit: But one review I found indicates that this book is Nelson's based on on an earlier Kang publication.
Just curious; I have no position on this matter.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 May 14
6 edits
Originally posted by JS357I cannot remember when I had these discussions or two. I think it was in the seventies. I was not interested in such things until around 1974. It could have been in the late 70s.
Was your introduction to the idea prior to 1979? One of the links I found indicates the first published work on this idea was "The discovery of Genesis: how the truths of Genesis were found hidden in the Chinese language" by C. H. Kang, Ethel R. Nelson, 1979.
edit: But one review I found indicates that this book is Nelson's based on on an earlier Kang publication.
Just curious; I have no position on this matter.
01 Jun 14
Originally posted by JS357The problem is that the website is not a direct copy of the original book. The website author has clearly copied the idea without actually knowing enough about Chinese to do a good job. So if I point out all the problems in the website, someone will merely say : but that doesn't apply to the original book.
Was your introduction to the idea prior to 1979? One of the links I found indicates the first published work on this idea was "The discovery of Genesis: how the truths of Genesis were found hidden in the Chinese language" by C. H. Kang, Ethel R. Nelson, 1979.
To give an example, the very first character on the website means 'small table' and not 'eight' as stated. However, the character for 'boat' under discussion may be written with either the 'small table' character or the 'eight' character although 'small table' is the standard one in use today.
Secondly, the writer says the language has its origin prior to 2000 BC, but the characters were written very differently then, and many have changed or been invented over time. So he needs to tell us the oldest known usage for the characters in question, not the oldest estimated usage of Chinese writing.
Of course what he also doesn't mention is that the Chinese civilization has a history going much further back as this would conflict with the Biblical timeline. But how can he reject it whilst simultaneously claiming the 2000 BC figure (which by the way is not correct, the oldest confirmed writing is c. 1200–1050 BC)
But the most important point is the one you already mentioned, ie that Chinese characters contain such a wide range of meaning that you can get anything you want out of them. The article interprets a square variously as: person, breath of mouth, man, mouth. Chinese characters use the same character whose root meaning is 'mouth' to mean an even wider range of things.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I mentioned on another thread, the actual Chinese history only goes back to the beginning of the reign of King Yu in 2194 B.C. Any history before that is considered mythology.
The problem is that the website is not a direct copy of the original book. The website author has clearly copied the idea without actually knowing enough about Chinese to do a good job. So if I point out all the problems in the website, someone will merely say : but that doesn't apply to the original book.
To give an example, the very first character o ...[text shortened]... ters use the same character whose root meaning is 'mouth' to mean an even wider range of things.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsOr so you would like to think, because it fits in nicely with your religious beliefs.
As I mentioned on another thread, the actual Chinese history only goes back to the beginning of the reign of King Yu in 2194 B.C. Any history before that is considered mythology.
In reality however, it is not so clear cut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_the_Great
Notice that his parents are mentioned by name.
And besides, that is only written history. Archaeology goes back a lot further.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadTHE FIRST TEN CHINESE EMPERORS
Or so you would like to think, because it fits in nicely with your religious beliefs.
In reality however, it is not so clear cut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_the_Great
Notice that his parents are mentioned by name.
And besides, that is only written history. Archaeology goes back a lot further.
Stories of the first ten emperors of China follow a chronology much like that of the first ten generations of Genesis. Like Adam, the first emperor was specially created, ruled "over the earth" (Genesis 1 :28) and wore the skins of animals. Shen-nung, the second emperor, was like Adam's son Cain in that he was the first farmer, who invented the plow and instigated the first markets. During another emperor's reign cattle were first herded, pitch pipes were invented and the first instruments of bronze and iron fashioned: Genesis 4:19-22 attributes these innovations to the sons of Lamech. The seventh man of each list was a bigamist. Noah and Yu, the tenth members of their lists, were flood heroes who developed a limp during the course of their labours and who were associated with the discovery of wine.10 The comparisons between Chinese and Biblical chronology are so many that many mythologists have admitted that they must have been inspired by the same source. These modern scholars suggest that both traditions evolved from Sumerian legends, but there are far more resemblances between Chinese and Biblical tradition than exist between the myths of Sumeria and China.
https://www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n2p04.htm