Discovery In Genesis - How the Truths of Genesis were found hidden in the ancient Chinese language

Faith & Science Conversation
1

I thought this deserved a thread of its own…irrespective of YEC verse ANE differences, its a topic i think should be discussed.

I appreciate that this will no doubt cause some uproar amongst those here who have not managed to move beyond defenses of ANE such as “Moses just copied Egyptian religious ideas” or “the bible is at times rehashing ancient Sumerian writings”…what we clearly find with this particular evidence is that Chinese pictographic language dates back at least 4000 years. and it appears to have some very clear connections to ancient religious belief that aligns with Abrahimic faith…some say it goes as far back as the Tower of Babel illustrated in the Bible.

Caveat, i have not yet researched counter claims to this book and I’m keen to have exposure to the criticisms either way here.

Ok so in this first post, i will simply insert the “overview of the book”. I will add some of the pictographic stuff in subsequent posts as i get time to do it.

Genesis: How the Truth of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language

Kang, C.H. and Nelson, Ethel R., The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truth of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language

Pages 154

ISBN 0570037921

“Who (God) in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways, nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness” [Acts 14:16-17]. Indeed, these verses resound again and over again through the reader’s mind when we take Kang’s work into perspectives. This was the product of long laborious endeavor of a man committed to contextualize gospel to Chinese land. His proof for God of Bible in Chinese Graphology is incontrovertible.

The author Reverend Kang is a native Chinese, who through his hard work discovered the truth many years ago. Ethel R. Nelson is an American missionary who was so intrigued by an earlier publication by C.H. Kang that she urged him to partner with her to go into more detail.

With the help of a flexible publisher and a talented calligrapher, they unfold the history of mankind from creation to the Tower of Babel from this written language that predates the ld Testament.

From a critical look, we also must not forget the historical formation of Chinese characters actually had been under much evolution till its modern widely accepted form. So the modern Chinese reader might find it somewhat inconceivable at times.

Nevertheless, I invincibly recommend this read for couple of reasons; first, because it’s an exotically extraordinary work. A foreigner to Chinese language, like me will find the book understandable because of its excellent sidebar graphics, it’s clear and concise. Second, I believe it will be a great tool for the missionaries to China who are interested in Contextual apologetics. Because book will convince a Chinese that Christianity is not an antipodal belief, instead, a historical reality well embedded in his very own culture and own ancient language

2

Now in the interests of academia and intellectual criticism…i will first present one authors review that offers some dissagreements with the authors claims in the book

Review of The Discovery of Genesis by C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson

The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language by C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson was recommended to me by a woman at a church that I visited when I was on a business trip to California. The main thesis of the book is that many Chinese characters show evidence that the ancient Chinese were familiar with Jewish monotheism and the creation story as told in the early chapters of Genesis.

I was not entirely unfamiliar with this startling claim. I remember that when I was a child, my parents pointed out to me that the Chinese character 船 (ship) was composed of the characters 舟 (boat), 八 (eight), and 口 (mouth or, synecdochally, person), and that there were eight people on Noah’s ark—Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. The 船 example is mentioned in The Discovery of Genesis as appearing in “a footnote of a Mandarin textbook used by a missionary,” but the book goes much further, and dissects a large number of Chinese characters in a similar fashion to demonstrate their connection with the Genesis narrative.

To skip ahead to the punchline, I find that the authors’ evidence for their main thesis is rather thin. It is a well-known psychological phenomenon that once you are convinced that a pattern is present, then everything will seem to confirm it, even if objectively there is nothing there. For example, in Chapter 8, the authors write:

The first human conception is recorded in the Chinese written language as a son. The word pregnant 孕 is made up of two symbols, is 乃 and a son 子. This character even looks pregnant, with the son contained within the larger figure!

I am happy to agree that the presence of 子 inside 孕 was intended (by the ancient Chinese who invented the character) to be a visual representation of a son inside its mother, but does the existence of this character really confirm the thesis that the ancient Chinese were familiar with the story of Eve giving birth to her son Cain? The authors think so, but I do not. For another example that I find even less believable, in Chapter 6 the authors discuss the radical 豸 (reptile , according to the authors, although I have always thought of this as animal or even pig ), and see the three strokes 彡 (feathers or hair ) in it as confirming the theory that the serpent in Genesis originally possessed wings and stood upright, before God cursed it to crawl on its belly.

Another issue that arises repeatedly through the book is that some of the characters that the authors dissect pictographically are, in my opinion, more plausibly explained phonetically. For example, in Chapter 7, the authors analyze 躲 (to hide) as 身 乃 木 (body is tree) and draw a connection to the story of Adam and Eve hiding among the trees from God after they realized that they were naked. However, 朵 is a homophone of 躲, and it seems more likely to me that the origin of the character 躲 is phonetic. Similarly, the authors analyze 赶 (drive out or expel) as having the radical 走 (go or walk)—so far so good—and that the 干 (offender) on the right is there because the first expulsion—from Eden—involved the expulsion of the offenders, Adam and Eve. The first worry I have is that I believe 赶 is a simplified character and of relatively recent origin (the traditional character being 趕), and I do not see how a character that was invented in the 20th century can provide any support for the authors’ thesis. But even if I am wrong about this and 赶 is an ancient character, it seems likely to me that the presence of 干 is phonetic, since 赶 and 干 are homophones (except for tone).

To be fair, in the epilog, Nelson does recognize that some of the character dissections are individually not so convincing. However, using the analogy of a mosaic, she maintains that while each component of the picture looks unconvincing in isolation, together they form a compelling picture. Similarly, in Footnote 5 of Chapter 3, the possibility of alternative phonetic analyses is discussed at some length. I remain unconvinced, but readers can judge for themselves.

Having expressed my overall skepticism, I would now like to pick out what I would consider to be the top ten examples from the book, listed in the order in which they appear.

  1. 先 (first) = 丿 (life, according to the authors, though I had not heard this interpretation before), 土 (soil), and 人 (person).

  2. 元 (beginning) = 二 人 (two people).

  3. 婪 (covet) = two 木 (trees, of life and of the knowledge of good and evil) and a 女 (woman).

  4. 禁 (forbidden) = two 木 (trees) and a 示 (deity or statement).

  5. 兇 (brutal) looks like, and is pronounced the same as, 兄 (elder brother), i.e., Cain, who killed Abel.

  6. 犧 (sacrifice) = 牛 羊 秀 戈 (ox sheep lovely spear).

  7. 上帝 (God) is pronounced ShangDi which resembles שַׁדַּי (Shaddai, one of the Judaic names of God).

  8. 沿 (continue) = 氵 八 口 (water eight people); compare the aforementioned analysis of 船 (ship).

  9. 乱 (confusion) contains the word 舌 (tongue), which the authors suggest is an allusion to Babel; note, though, that again I have the impression that 乱 is a simplified character of recent origin.

  10. 遷 (migrate) = 西 大 卩 辶 (west big division walk), which the authors regard as a post-Babel reference; but note that the interpretation of 卩 as division is a bit obscure.

If you find these examples compelling, then I would recommend reading the book for the full account; you may also want to read the sequel, Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn’t Solve (which I have not read). But if not, then I doubt that looking at the full list of examples will be any more persuasive to you.

3

I am guessing that there have been no responses because there seems nothing to get our teeth into. To be honest the idea of interpreting Chinese pictograms using western Iconography beggers belief.

Logic would dictate that God would not ignore over threequarters of the world during their infancy or development but whether there would be correlation between cultures is less obvious. God meets people where they are and we know perfectly well that the diversity in human thought and understanding is too vast for just one approach.

I am sorry Adam but this one is just too left field, even for me.

Richard

3 Likes
4

I don’t even see half of those as plausibly connected to Israel, Hebrew, or the Old Testament. It’s a ridiculously thin case.

2 Likes
5

Another version of 'The Bible is a Secret Code that explains everything, if you just have the right special knowledge to unlock it’s meaning."

Even if I had the language to evaluate this, I don’t have the time or the capacity to deal with the expected disappointment in the authors.

Adam, let’s use our limited lives to serve Jesus in better ways.
Let’ go forth and do that.

1 Like
6

My mother had a book for some reason on this topic when I was a child… I remember some of the arguments, and while not something conclusive, they were quite compelling. Why the idea of a “vessel” (i.e. ocean going vessel) would include the character for “eight people” is hard to explain randomly, though it certainly fits within the Genesis narrative.

I would never go so far as to claim this proves any particular point. But I would recognize that it is rather interesting that the Chinese characters do in fact support the idea that these historical events did in fact happen, and the traces of which can be found in the most ancient Chinese characters.

It doesn’t prove anything, but it does demonstrate that it is consistent with the historicity of the various events recorded in the Genesis account.

Point is, that if the events of Genesis 1-11 did transpire as actual history, and were passed down by Noah and his descendants that stepped off the ark, who were later disbursed at the tower of Babel… then it is absolutely not surprising that these events would be evident in said Chinese language.

7

It is hardly surprising that symbols from oral “histories” passed down among generations were made into pictograph characters in written languages.

I think all it says is that the histories or myths were passed along between generations and even cultures. Which aspects of the myths that were “historical” in the modern sense is another question altogether.

8

That is something i recognise and agree with Daniel.

I should have been open enough at the start to begin with the caveat that Im not seeking 100% proof…i honestly do not think we have it in any case. All that we have are evidences…the still small voice that spoke to Elijah, that drew him to wrap his clock around himself and exit to the mouth of the cave.

What i am always seeking to do on these forums is to challenge and be challenged.

I accept and honestly say that none of the hours of study over the last 4 or 5 years (since the start of COVID) has directly brought me into a closer personal relationship with God…i dont feel that it has and i say that both sincerely and in a way with sadness. However…

What i can say is that thanks to my search and study, I found these forums…and on these forums i have encountered some wonderful individuals who, whilst they fundamentally disagree with my YECism, they have demonstrated one of the most wonderful things about Christianity…it doesnt need to be complicated. All one has to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. I am extremely grateful for those individuals for it is because of them that i feel closer to God (might seem strange but for me its true)

Having said that, i feel that too many Christians even in my own denomination are walking around ignorant of the dilemmas we face. So many non Christians scoff at our rather unitelligent defense of faith. It is for that reason i challenge and want to be challenged, i believe faith can have a very strong historical and scientific foundation.

9

For me these are not absolutes…they are references used in order to develop evidences in support of.

I am a realist, I expect opposition to be doing the same thing. The difference is, what are the underlying mechanics (if you like) that favour or refute particular claims… are there enough dilemmas to either support or discredit a particular world view.

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees, for me it cannot be ignored that the ancient Chinese pictographs do represent biblical themes. Personally, and I imagine St Roymond may agree on this, pictographical comparisons between Christianity and Atheism do not necessarily mean one world view is wrong (or right)…what it does highlight is that we have similar origins (whether it be religious or otherwise) and that isn’t surprising as Daniel highlights in his post above.

The significant thing for me about these pictographs is also the timeline. For the Christian, the additional timeline factor is very significant given it dates the development of this language to around the Biblical time of Tower of Babel. So in the one reference here, we have two significant claims:

  1. Timing for the development of the pictographical language dates back to approximately the Tower of Babel and
  2. The language is derived from similar themes to Creation and the Noahs Flood (the flood being extremely significant because that occurred at most a generation or so earlier than the development of the pictographic language of the Chinese)

When we add this evidence to other ancient cultural evidences, such as the Aboriginal account of Noahs flood from a news article in Perth Australia…well joining the dots isnt hard.

image
image1920×810 179 KB

(BTW…note what the story next to it happens to be about…Tower of Babel)

10

Grasping at circumstantial “evidence” to layer on top of circumstantial “evidence” is not helpful or encouraging to me as a believer or a practicing Christian. I find these kinds of attempts by my brothers and sisters to create doubt of doubt by grasping at straws, seeing connections where they are not, more eroding than strengthening. And we just look silly, making our faith look silly as well.

We have real work to do in the world. The local SDA church has been opening the path to the gospel in their ministries to the physical needs for people. That speaks much louder than far out conjecture like this stuff. You don’t need it, Adam. Uphold Jesus’ ideals and tell people the good news of God’s Kingdom. That is the real stuff.

3 Likes
11

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.