Creationism and the etymology of Chinese characters
Peter Seebach
* I have never in my life believed in literal creation; it would never have
occurred to me. From my earliest memories, I've always believed the world
was very very old.
* I'm a Christian, and I believe that dishonesty is a clear violation of
Christian ethics.
* Although I spoke Chinese fluently perhaps twelve or thirteen years ago, and
could read and write well enough to get along, I am no longer really fluent,
and I do need to use a dictionary to check my memory of words. Except
for the word for "eight", which I will probably remember long after they've
had to put me back in diapers; I can count to ten in Chinese in my sleep.
In a debate about Babel and Young-earth Creation, someone recently posted
a URL to a page that "shows", from the etymology of Chinese characters, that
the creation story is illustrated by their etymologies.
This claim is false. In each case, there are substantial problems with the
understanding that led to the "etymologies" presented; in two cases, the
meanings shown for individual components are simply flatly incorrect.
Here's the page:
http://www.searchforthetruth.org/v_12.htm
I have, while researching this, found another page:
http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/
which makes similar claims.
They make the following claims:
1. The Chinese word for god means "heaven emperor", and this is claimed to
show that the Chinese originally worshipped only one God.
2. The word "create" has roots of "breathe", "dust", "walking", and "alive",
and this ties into the Genesis story of breath breathed into dust.
3. The word "boat" has roots of "vessel", "8", and "people", clearly
referring to Noah's ark.
4. The word for "rebellion" or "confusion" has components meaning "tongue"
and "journey" (or "right leg").
In this article, I will demonstrate that these claims are, at best, laughably
wrong.
A few notes on presentation:
1. Chinese is a tonal language. My keyboard is not a tonal keyboard. I will
use pinyin, using a numeric suffix instead of an accent mark to denote tone.
Thus, the word for mother is "ma1 ma1".
2. I am not an artist, so you'll have to live with vague descriptions of the
shapes. You can see the shapes on the web page in question, except for the
one of the misidentified ones.
3. Independant of the specific analysis of symbols below, *THE PRESENSE OF A
SYMBOL IN A CHARACTER DOES NOT ALWAYS DENOTE MEANING*. In many, many, many,
words, a symbol is used for pronunciation, or sometimes just to *hint* at
pronunciation, so far as anyone was ever able to explain.
Claim The First:
First off, they compress "shang4 di4" into a single character, which is
incorrect; it's two syllables, and thus two characters. I have seen various
attempts to draw connections between this word and the Christian God -
certainly, it's used as the translation for "God" in modern Chinese. However,
it is hard to support the claim that all "heavenly rulers" are intended to
be the same as "God". So, it's not an etymology; it's a choice of likely
words to describe the concept. Totally uninformative. So... While this one
may not be "false" in terms of Chinese language, it doesn't support the claim.
Claim The Second:
The word for "create". Here, we need to be descriptive. They show a
combination of many components. One of the components looks a bit like a
cross with a line under it; another looks like an apostrophe. The theory is
that each component is contributing meaning.
First off, note that the character called "dust" here is the same one called
"heaven" before. Surprising? Not in Chinese! "tu3" does, in fact, get drawn
the same way, and means "earth".
Unfortunately, that's not relevant. The symbol you get when you put the
apostrophe on the left side of the plus sign is *not* a combination of the
plus sign with this character that means "life". I can't even find the
apostrophe as a separate character in my dictionary; it looks like they
might be trying to use that it's sometimes used as a radical, but there's
no such word without other stuff in it. The word is "zao4". The radical
for "motion" is right; arguably, they could be right about the mouth. The
rest is too far gone to dignify with the term "wrong". I would guess that
presenting this explanation to a native speaker could, however, get an
impressive belly laugh.
Of particular note is the amount of assumption required; given a plausible
"kou3", they write "(from God's) mouth". Uh-huh. Not how the language works,
sorry.
Claim The Third:
This is the one that really caught my eye. The claim is that we have words
for "vessel", "eight", and "people". The claim is false. The word they
describe as "people" is, in fact, our old friend "kou3", meaning "mouth".
What does this have to do with people? The same thing the word "head" has to
do with "cattle" in English. In all probability, someone read a dictionary's
usage example for that meaning, saw "people", and concluded that it means
people... but you can't *do* that. If you want people, you have to use
"ren2".
It gets worse. The symbol for "8" in Chinese ("ba1") looks very much like a
pair of slashes that are a bit squished: Think "/ \", only the sides curve in
a little. The symbol they show is *NOT* an "8" at all! It's either "ji1"
(which can mean "a small table", or "nearly or almost"), or "ji3", meaning
"how many". The other symbol means either "vessel" or "boat"; it's "zhou1".
The combined word is "chuan3".
The word for "ship" does not mean "boat with eight people on it".
This also shows that the authors of this analysis did not know Chinese well
enough to recognize the basic numerals.
Other, similar, claims have been made. They are just as intellectually
bankrupt. One page gives the citation:
For more information, please refer to the book "The Discovery of
Genesis - How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese
Language", by C.H. Kang and Ether R. Nelson, Concordia Press, 1979.
I am uninclined to spend long hours poring over a book that is being used
for such painful nonsense as the above claims.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Harlequin
[...]
> Here's the page:
> http://www.searchforthetruth.org/v_12.htm
>
> I have, while researching this, found another page:
> http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/
> which makes similar claims.
>
> They make the following claims:
>
> 1. The Chinese word for god means "heaven emperor", and this is claimed to
> show that the Chinese originally worshipped only one God.
>
> 2. The word "create" has roots of "breathe", "dust", "walking", and "alive",
> and this ties into the Genesis story of breath breathed into dust.
>
> 3. The word "boat" has roots of "vessel", "8", and "people", clearly
> referring to Noah's ark.
>
> 4. The word for "rebellion" or "confusion" has components meaning "tongue"
> and "journey" (or "right leg").
[...]
Answers in Genesis also makes these sorts of claims:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/388.asp
Walt Brown as well:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences11.html
Here are some more:
http://feistymama.com/bp/chinese.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CW_Arnhem/chinchar/chinchar5.html
http://www.morgenster.org/signs.htm
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/chinese.html
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/flood1.html
http://www.rohlin.com/pastors/Research/Chinese/ark.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/1834/Chinese.html
http://www.watchmanmag.com/0112/011211.htm
So I think it is safe to say that the claim is widespread. This might be a
a good subject matter for an FAQ for The Talk.Origins Archive.
I have, BTW, crossposted to sci.lang for obvious reasons.
----
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin"
Dylan Sung
"Peter Seebach" <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:3cf07639$0$79557$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
Further, if it was the name used in ancient China, it would most likely be a
single syllable, and would have been given one single character. The alleged
"character" is not found in ancient texts, you should find that a fair
indication of how modern it is.
> Claim The Second:
>
> The word for "create". Here, we need to be descriptive. They show a
> combination of many components. One of the components looks a bit like a
> cross with a line under it; another looks like an apostrophe. The theory
is
> that each component is contributing meaning.
>
> First off, note that the character called "dust" here is the same one
called
> "heaven" before. Surprising? Not in Chinese! "tu3" does, in fact, get
drawn
> the same way, and means "earth".
>
> Unfortunately, that's not relevant. The symbol you get when you put the
> apostrophe on the left side of the plus sign is *not* a combination of the
> plus sign with this character that means "life". I can't even find the
> apostrophe as a separate character in my dictionary; it looks like they
> might be trying to use that it's sometimes used as a radical, but there's
> no such word without other stuff in it. The word is "zao4". The radical
> for "motion" is right; arguably, they could be right about the mouth. The
> rest is too far gone to dignify with the term "wrong". I would guess that
> presenting this explanation to a native speaker could, however, get an
> impressive belly laugh.
The truth of the matter is, Chinese characters can be decomposed into
various components. However, if you misuse this fact, and then give spurious
semi-plausible arguments, you can cobble together a load of misinformation.
The earliest book from a Chinese source which sets down the origin of 9500
characters does not even say that they are decomposed into the ones that the
web authors give. I won't give them here. Further, the original character is
not written in the same character form.
>
> Of particular note is the amount of assumption required; given a plausible
> "kou3", they write "(from God's) mouth". Uh-huh. Not how the language
works,
> sorry.
That is right.
In another link, the character for garden is infact the character for a
paddy field tian2. If you allow for that loose a interpretation of any
character, then the conclusions that are drawn from the data are only as
good as the assumptions that were made.
Correct! I find the whole thing rather funny, and shows an immense ignorance
of the originators of this crud.
>
> Other, similar, claims have been made. They are just as intellectually
> bankrupt. One page gives the citation:
>
> For more information, please refer to the book "The Discovery of
> Genesis - How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese
> Language", by C.H. Kang and Ether R. Nelson, Concordia Press, 1979.
>
> I am uninclined to spend long hours poring over a book that is being used
> for such painful nonsense as the above claims.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
se...@plethora.net
> $ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the
terrorists.
> C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
> Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access:
http://www.plethora.net/
>
The following is from Harlequin's post (again for sci.lang)
> [...]
>
> Answers in Genesis also makes these sorts of claims:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/388.asp
>
> Walt Brown as well:
>
> http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences11.html
>
> Here are some more:
>
> http://feistymama.com/bp/chinese.htm
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CW_Arnhem/chinchar/chinchar5.html
> http://www.morgenster.org/signs.htm
> http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/chinese.html
> http://www.case-creation.org.uk/flood1.html
> http://www.rohlin.com/pastors/Research/Chinese/ark.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/1834/Chinese.html
> http://www.watchmanmag.com/0112/011211.htm
>
> So I think it is safe to say that the claim is widespread.
This is rather premature, since the majority of these links cites one
source - that of
C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (Concordia
Publishing House, St. Louis, U.S.A., 1979).
and those that didn't cite anyone for those characters, then they were plain
plagarists. For those who bought the book, then they've really wasted their
money, and the authors have profited - money is the root of all evil.
> This might be a
> a good subject matter for an FAQ for The Talk.Origins Archive.
>
> I have, BTW, crossposted to sci.lang for obvious reasons.
Peter's comments are quite accurate.
As I've said, the characters you see are Chinese, but not the form
originally used in ancient China. Since you're decomposing relatively modern
characters and then burdening them with ignorant claims, I find those of you
who were hoodwinked by this nonsense truely sad.
Dyl.
Harlequin
the Chinese language supports a literal fundamentalist interpretation
of the book of Genesis.
You can always trust Kent Hovind, "Dr." Dino, to make bad arguments:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=24
The Institute for Creation Research also makes the claims:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-169.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-158.htm
I guess having garbage biology, astronomy, geology, physics, and history
is just not enough for the young-earthers.
Peter T. Daniels
The reasons aren't obvious to _this_ sci.langer. Misconceptions about
the Chinese language and the Chinese writing system have been rampant
since knowledge of them first reached Europe nearly 1000 years ago.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Jim McKee
try to prove their case and modernistic skeptics who also overlook
something very obvious: In Chinese "shang di" (Pinyin) simply means
"Heaven" or Upper Place, and Confucius was in no doubt that an
intelligent order "above" oversees the world - just as Plato and
Aristotle thought, and I did say "thought", not "superstitiously
believed", i.e. they were all very observant and thoughtful. Confucius
said that the world became corrupted when the Emperor and those below
him deviated from the "way of Heaven" - i.e. Confucius believed in a
"fallen world" but also in the possibility of ultimate rightness.
Lee Sau Dan
>> 1. The Chinese word for god means "heaven emperor",
Just a matter of translation. Do you take it serious?
The Protestants translate it as "heaven father" or simply "god". So,
what does that say? The Islamic god (Allah) is translated into
Chinese as "real/true lord". Does that mean it is "real" (to be
touchable)?
>> and this is claimed to show that the Chinese originally
>> worshipped only one God.
That's nonsense. The Chinese culture has been multi-deity.
>> 2. The word "create" has roots of "breathe", "dust",
>> "walking", and "alive",
What? I can't relate these, except "alive" to "create". Yes, the
same character is used for "alive", "create", "spawn off",
"reproduce".
>> and this ties into the Genesis story of
>> breath breathed into dust.
Nonsense!
>> 3. The word "boat" has roots of "vessel", "8", and "people",
>> clearly referring to Noah's ark.
"Boat" and "vessel"? I can't find a single Chinese word that means
both or sounds like both. Neither for "8" and "people".
>> 4. The word for "rebellion" or "confusion" has components
>> meaning "tongue" and "journey" (or "right leg").
What? Where is the "tongue" in "rebellion"? I can't find it. And a
"right leg" in "confusion"? What characters are being refered to
exactly? I can't think of any.
Harlequin> So I think it is safe to say that the claim is
Harlequin> widespread.
Hahahaha... another urban legend.
Harlequin> I have, BTW, crossposted to sci.lang for obvious
Harlequin> reasons.
I don't think sci.lang is so relevant. Is there any
soc.culture.chinese? If not, try soc.culture.hongkong,
soc.culture.singapore and many tw.*, hk.* newsgroups (not necessarily
available on all news servers).
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Yusuf B Gursey
:>>>>> "Harlequin" == Harlequin <use...@mmcable.com> writes:
: >> 1. The Chinese word for god means "heaven emperor",
: Just a matter of translation. Do you take it serious?
: The Protestants translate it as "heaven father" or simply "god". So,
: what does that say? The Islamic god (Allah) is translated into
: Chinese as "real/true lord". Does that mean it is "real" (to be
how does it translate into? (they are supposed to be the same BTW)
: touchable)?
: >> and this is claimed to show that the Chinese originally
: >> worshipped only one God.
: That's nonsense. The Chinese culture has been multi-deity.
really? I thought it did eventually develop into some sort
monotheism or monolatery. it is said that that the turko-mongol tengri /
heaven cult did eventually transform itself into something like that, at
least as promoted by the qaghans (who liked the idea of a single tengri
corresponding to a single qaghan.
Adam Marczyk
news:e39a1026.02052...@posting.google.com...
I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, if you're still reading this thread, would you
care to work this up into a FAQ? We can help with XHTML coding and other
formatting issues if needed.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Harlequin <use...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:e39a1026.02052...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
>> So I think it is safe to say that the claim is widespread. This might be a
>> a good subject matter for an FAQ for The Talk.Origins Archive.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, if you're still reading this thread, would you
> care to work this up into a FAQ? We can help with XHTML coding and other
> formatting issues if needed.
Here is a post I wrote on the subject sometime ago. There are
a number of defeciencies with it, and it refers directly to
another poster who is quoting (indirectly) the creationist
etymology of Kang and Nelson, who are the original source
behind many of these claims.
At the time I wrote the post, I did not know this original
source, and had to work simply from claims as posted to
Usenet.
Unfortunately I do not have direct access to Kang and Nelson,
and my own etymology here could also be improved. So this
post is a long way short of FAQ standard, but I hope it might
give some useful background and pointers.
Remember... what follows is response to a post in 1999.
I have verified that links given are still useful.
----------------from personal archives-----------------
ur322...@my-deja.com wrote in <80vslk$uta$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> A record of the Creation and Flood are also to be found preserved in
> the ancient chinese written language (Pictographs). For instance, the
> Chinese characters for `to Create' consist of the characters for;
> `dust', `mouth' (=person), `movement of life', and `able to walk'. The
> Chinese characters for `boat' consist of the Chinese Characters for:
> `Vessel', `eight', and `mouth'. The Chinese word for `to continue' or
> `to hand down' is `eight persons' with three wavy lines underneath
> (making it appear as if the `eight people' are on water).
>
> Secret + man + garden + alive = devil
> devil + trees + cover = tempter
> eight + united + earth = total
> total + water = flood
> eight + Person = common to all
> Woman + Trees = desire, covet
> Serpent + Trees = negative, not, not
> Noble Person + Sheep = beautiful
> lance + hand = me + sheep = righteousness
>
> There are many others. Please note that the origin of the chinese
> pictographs (their written language) precedes the later Chinese tales of
> Creation, which are quite different than the Genesis account. It seems
> that while they were fabricating their creation story many centuries
> later, little did they know that their ancestors had preserved the
> Genesis account within their `alphabet'!
There are many errors in the above, some of them quite fundamental.
If I may state my conclusion first -- the above material shows no
real understanding of Chinese characters. None of the links with
the story of Genesis are even remotely plausible.
I will refer to ur32212451's unknown source as [C] (for Chinese, or
characters, or creationist). I appreciate that the extract above is
not ur32212451's own work; and any errors I identify are due to [C].
I'm happy to have this idea aired in public. I intend no criticism
of anyone for raising the issue. I hope no one is offended by my
reasons for saying the material is worthless.
Also please note that I am not arguing for or against any particular
interpretation of Genesis. I am simply pointing out that examination
of Chinese characters has nothing at all to do with the matter. The
actual examination is given below, and can be skipped by those who
are not concerned with this line of argument for the veracity of
the Genesis creation and flood stories.
However, I do believe this examination is worthwhile, because far
too often the scholarship cited in these debates is very poor
quality. This is certainly a case in point; and should not be
allowed to pass unchallenged.
If I may draw a moral in advance: be careful not to commit too
quickly to a line of argument which you do not understand just on the
basis of its conclusions. The most atrocious rubbish is frequently
cited without ever having been subject to proper examination; if
it is shown to be vacuous this can backfire badly on the view you
sought to defend.
For people who would like to pursue an understanding of Chinese,
I strongly recommend the following URLs:
(1) Very simple, short, easy introduction
http://www.dalton.org/faculty/rhf/
(2) Very detailed, lots of links, superb reference utility.
http://zhongwen.com/
Look especially at their FAQ: "Are Characters Pictures?"
http://zhongwen.com/x/faq6.htm
This post is my own work, but I am indebted to Prof Rod Bucknell
of the University of Queensland for helping me locate some of the
characters from the descriptions above, and for his comments on a
first draft of this posting. Professor Bucknell is associated both
with religious studies and with Asian languages at the University
of Queensland.
Any errors that remain in what follows are my own.
Introduction to the examination.
--------------------------------
The common perception of Chinese characters as pictographs is
misleading.
Pictographs are important as a foundation to understanding written
Chinese, but only a fraction of modern characters are pictographs.
The vast majority of characters are "semantic-phonetic"; including
most of those cited above.
Semantic-phonetic characters have two parts; a semantic part and
a phonetic part. The semantic part does not usually give a direct
meaning, but a general concept area. The phonetic part has no link
with the meaning, but simply suggests how the character should
be pronounced.
In this post I will refer to Chinese characters by their modern
pinyin form, including a number for the tone; with a little practice
anyone could use this information to find the characters in most
Chinese dictionaries.
I'll look at each of the examples cited above, and discuss
then in turn. My primary reference is the on-line dictionary
at http://zhongwen.com. I have also used my own little written
dictionary, and was greatly assisted by Prof Bucknell's remarks.
Each example is cited by [C] as an equation, suggesting that the
character in question combines a number of concepts to give a new
concept. In each case, I will give the pinyin for the equation
used by [C], the real equation for the character in question,
and discuss any problems with [C]'s equation or analysis.
Case by case consideration
--------------------------
> Chinese characters for `to Create' consist of the characters for;
> `dust', `mouth' (=person), `movement of life', and `able to walk'.
This is a clear reference to zao4, which means create, or make.
[C]'s derivation is incorrect: the real derivation is
chuo4 + gao4 = zao4
niu2 + kou3 = gao4
This is a semantic-phonetic character. The chuo4 means start-stop,
and can also indicate "able to walk". The gao4 part is purely
phonetic. It means "tell" or "accuse", but this has no connection
with the meaning of create. gao4 is in turn derived from niu2 (ox)
and kou3 (mouth).
There is no notion of dust here at all.
The niu2 (ox) pictograph has a very superficial resemblance to tu3
(earth, or soil), if you ignore the extra stroke for a horn and do
not extend the downward stroke. As it turns out, in zao4 the downward
stroke in question is abbreviated, making this an obvious error by [C].
The concept "movement of life" is most likely [C]'s interpretation
of the extra stroke for the horn of the ox. There is a small stroke
in Chinese called pie3. It is a falling line, representing motion.
It is not "movement of life", but simply "motion" which can also be
used to convey "drag" or "drop". More seriously, the stroke in this
case is certainly a part of the ox pictograph, and is not the pie3
stroke. [My thanks to Prof Bucknell for mentioning this possibility,
which had not even occurred to me!]
The character for mouth, kou3, is not used to represent person.
This is an error repeated consistently by [C].
In conclusion, this example shows no connection with the Genesis
creation account, but some very revealing misunderstandings of
Chinese characters.
> Chinese characters for `boat' consist of the Chinese Characters for:
> `Vessel', `eight', and `mouth'.
This is an obvious reference to chuan2 (ship, or boat). The
components of chuan2 given by [C] are correct. The derivation is
zhou1 + yan3 = chuan2
ba1 + kou3 = yan3
This is a semantic-phonetic character. The zhou1 is the semantic
part. It also means boat, and is a pictograph for a dugout canoe!
The yan3 is a phonetic part, used only to suggest how the character
sounds. It means ravine, and consists of ba1 meaning "divide" (or
"eight"), and kou3 meaning "outlet" (or "mouth").
Note that kou3 does not mean person. It means mouth. In this
particular instance, it denotes an outlet. The character yan3
(ravine) is a semantic combination suggesting draining water from
the ba1 (divide) and kou3 (outlet).
There is another serious error here, which is repeated throughout
[C]'s presentation.
The original meaning of ba1 is divide. It only became associated with
the number eight relatively late in the development of Chinese. All
of [C]'s references to eight therefore cannot be ancient references
to a forgotten story about eight people.
> The Chinese word for `to continue' or
> `to hand down' is `eight persons' with three wavy lines underneath
> (making it appear as if the `eight people' are on water).
There is no character that fits this description. In any case,
any association of "continue" or "hand down" with Noah's family
and the flood is a major reach.
The character ji4 means continue, or inherit. Its real derivation is
ji1 + hue2 = ji4
This character does have three little strokes in the lower left side.
They are part of the radical ji1, which is a pictograph for three
threads twisted together. The hue2 component has four repeated
elements which look nothing like eight persons, and which are not
above the three lines, which look nothing like water in any case.
I guess [C] might have this in mind, but I could be mistaken. Nothing
else seems to fit. This derivation is complete nonsense, of course;
but so are many of [C]'s other derivations which are more obvious.
> Secret + man + garden + alive = devil
This character is gui3, meaning ghost or devil. [C]'s derivation
is incorrect, but the source of errors is readily apparent. This
character is a semantic-combination, and its correct derivation is
ren2 + fu2 + si1 = gui3
ren2 is a representation of two legs, and means a man.
fu2 is a representation of a large spirit head.
si1 is not really the appropriate name, but corresponds to a small
stroke looking a bit like si1, and suggestive of vapour.
Combined, this is meaning a spirit-man, or ghost.
But how did [C] get secret and garden and alive?
The mistake leading to "garden" is obvious.
The spirit head (fu2) looks very similar to tian2, which means field.
fu2 is distinguished by one extra stroke. tian2 is a pictograph of
a grid of paddy fields, and refers to farming land. It certainly is
exactly the wrong character to represent the garden of Eden! (The
real character for garden is yuan2).
[C]'s reference to "alive" had me totally lost. Nothing about the
character fits the notion of "alive". Prof Bucknell suggested a neat
solution. The difference between the spirit head pictograph (fu2)
used in this character and the field pictograph (tian2) assumed by
[C] is one small stroke. [C] has probably taken this stroke as the
pie3 stroke, which is a single falling line representing motion.
In zao4 (create) discussed above [C] probably makes the same error,
interpreting the extra stroke from the niu2 (ox) component as a pie3
stroke denoting "movement of life".
The same errors are repeated in both cases. First, the stroke is
wrongly identified. It is here certainly a part of fu2, and not an
addition to tian2. Second, even if the stroke was pie3, it denotes
movement, not life.
The use of "secret" is most likely a reference to the si1 component.
In gui3 the stroke denoting a vapour can be linked to the si1
stroke, which is suggestive of "not straightforward". A similar
stroke also appears in the character (si1 = he2 + si1) which DOES
mean secret. However, there are two problems. First, the common
stroke si1 does not convey the meaning of secret by itself. Second,
and more fundamentally, the stroke in question is not actually the
same stroke or connotation as used in si1 (secret) anyway.
> devil + trees + cover = tempter
This is an obvious reference to mo2, with the derivation
gui3 + ma2 = mo2
lin2 + yan3 = ma2
This example also shows many errors and confusions.
First, mo2 means demon. The association with tempter is a subsequent
imposition onto the character, and most likely based on the phonetic
similarity with the name of the Buddhist tempter, "Mara". I quote
here with permission Prof Bucknell's remarks on the subject:
(1) mo2:
Chinese translators of Sanskrit Buddhist texts often represented
proper names phonetically by using appropriate sounding
characters with little regard for the meaning (cf. "Australia" =
ao4-da4-li4-ya4). The Buddhist tempter is named Mara, and this
was rendered as mo2-luo2 (at that time probably pronounced
ma2-la2, which is why ma2 hemp was an appropriate phonetic
component in the first character). Later the first character
of mo2-luo2 acquired, by itself, the meaning "tempter" (cf.
ao4 = "Australia"). The fact that mo2 appropriately has
the demon radical is probably not entirely accidental, since
characters used in the phonetic representation of foreign names
are sometimes chosen with semantic considerations in mind (cf.
Saudi Arabia = sha1-te4 a1-la1-bo2, reduced to sha1, which means
"sand"). Regarding the date of this Buddhist use of mo2 for
tempter, I guess it could go back as far as the later Han,
when translation of Sanskrit Buddhist texts got under way;
but there I'm out of my depth.
Second, this character is semantic-phonetic. gui3 is the semantic
part, meaning ghost, discussed previously. But ma2 is a phonetic
component, used only as a guide to pronunciation; it is an error
to attempt a semantic association.
ma2 means "hemp". It is a character itself in two parts, which
could be thought of as "trees + cover", as [C] has obviously done.
The third error concerns lin2, as "trees". This part is originally
taken from an ancient pictograph for hemp seeds, and is not derived
from trees at all. This component now is written in modern Chinese so
that it resembles "lin2" (which IS made from two tree pictographs,
and means "forest") but this is plainly a modern representation.
The ancient form was not the two trees at all; and so this cannot
be an ancient reference to a story involving two trees.
Fourth, the "cover" part of the character is yan3, which is better
called "shed" or "shelter". The [C] source probably uses the word
"cover" to be suggestive of Adam and Eve covering themselves in
the garden. This is a clear mistake. yan3 has nothing to do with
covering of nakedness; it is a wall and a roof to form a shelter,
as would be used for drying hemp.
> eight + united + earth = total
This is a reference to gong4. The correct derivation is
nian4 + gong3 = gong4
This is a semantic-combination character; both parts contribute
to the meaning. They mean "twenty" "hands", and suggest all are
working together.
The equation proposed by [C] corresponds to
ba1 + bing4 + tu3 = gong4
This is absurd in many ways. The ba1 character means "eight", and
has two small strokes. [C] is repeating the error of thinking the
meaning "eight" is ancient, discussed previously.
More comically, in this case there is no association with ba1
anyway! [C] has simply taken two little strokes in a character and
associated those strokes with ba1. In fact, they are a part of gong3
(hands) and have nothing to do with eight or with divide.
The character bing4 means "unite", and has a very superficial
similarity in form to gong3, which is what is really used in this
character.
Likewise the character tu3 (earth, or soil) has only a superficial
similarity in form with gong4; [C]'s associations are vacuous.
> total + water = flood
This is an easy one.
gong4 + shui3 = hong2
The component gong4 here the same as discussed in the previous
equation. However, it is used here is a phonetic guide rather
than a semantic component, not that it really matters.
No special connection with Genesis is indicated or required.
The only basis for a connection is the set of trivial mistakes
and confusions surrounding the gong4 component, which were
discussed for the previous equation.
> eight + Person = common to all
The phrase "common to all" could be intended to mean gong1, or fen1.
I'll consider both possibilities. (Prof Bucknell suggests gong1).
The derivation of gong1 is
ba1 + si1 = gong1
This is a semantic-combination, representing "divide" (ba1) what
is "private" (si1). The character can mean "share".
The standard error of thinking "eight" (ba1) is an ancient meaning
rears its head again in equation. Here it is obviously used
with the original ancient meaning of divide.
si1 is a small line representing a lack of straightforwardness, and
can suggest selfish. To take this as "person" is an enormous stretch.
The above is the most likely intended character by [C], but the
equation is far removed from any sensible understanding of Chinese.
Other possible interpretations are only worse... [C] might have
meant:
ba1 + dao1 = fen1
This is a semantic-combination "divide" (ba1) with a "knife" (dao1),
and can mean "distribute", and sometimes share. The character dao1
has two strokes, and in some bizarre set of circumstances it might
be mistaken for ren2, which means person.
Another remote possibility is
ren2 + fen1 = fen4
I considered this because it really does have "person" (ren2) as
part of the character; the second part being fen1 which means to
distribute, and was dissected above. One could perhaps look at the
ba1 part of fen1 and misinterpret it as eight, ignoring the dao1
part for knife. The character fen4 means a portion; rather than
"common to all".
Whichever construction [C] intends, it is plainly worthless.
> Woman + Trees = desire, covet
Easy: nu3 + lin2 = lan2
This is a semantic-phonetic character. The lin2 part (trees) is
included for its phonetic value, and contributes nothing to the
meaning.
Worthless as a reference to Genesis; but if we ignore the repeated
confusion on the nature of pictographs and character formation,
the actual equation is actually correct in this case.
> Serpent + Trees = negative, not, not
No character fits this description. Prof Bucknell was unable to
help here either.
I think [C] may be thinking of wei4, which has the derivation
mu4 + extra stroke = wei4
The character mu4 is a single tree. The extra stroke represents
an additional branch (corresponding to che4).
wei4 does mean negative; but this meaning is relatively recent;
it is not derived from ancient meanings.
The extra stroke is certainly not a snake, but [C] may well be
imposing that idea upon it to get a snake in a tree.
I did also try to look for other possibilities, no matter how
far out.
[C] speaks of trees (plural) which suggests something with lin2
(two trees, indicating forest). Nothing constructed from lin2
seems to fit. A correct snake association would correspond to hui3
or ta1 or she2. None of these are any help either.
I'd love to know what [C] means by this.
> Noble Person + Sheep = beautiful
The character is obviously mei3. The derivation is
da2 + yang2 = mei3
yang2 indeed means sheep.
da2 actually means big, or plump. The character mei3 is a semantic
combination, suggestive of a nice plump sheep. The word is usually
used for beautiful; but it can also mean tasty, or delicacy.
The character da2 is a pictograph of a person with arms outstretched,
representing bigness. It does not mean noble person; though da2 is
used in some phrases to convey importance. "da2 ren2" (literally
"big person") just means adult. There is no implication of nobility.
What connection [C] intends with Genesis is a mystery.
> lance + hand = me + sheep = righteousness
The character is yi4, and the derivation is
yang2 + wo3 = yi4
shou3 + ge1 = wo3
The yang2 is a sheep, and wo2 means (me), which is in turn derived
from shou3 (hand) and ge1 (halberd, or weapon).
No problems here, except we are left in the dark as to why [C]
thinks this has anything to do with Genesis.
Conclusion.
-----------
The Chinese characters connection with Genesis is without any
merit; except perhaps as yet another case study of incompetence
in creationist scholarship.
No criticism of ur32212451 is intended in this post, and I thank
him for the opportunity to make this response.
------------------------end archived post------------------------
------------------------another extract------------------------
ur322...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Dear Chris Ho-Stuart.
>
> I have read and reread your reply in its entirety. To be frank,
> I have no way of knowing if you are right or wrong. I have very
> little personal knowledge of Chinese pictographs. The sourse book
> I read from which the above was gleamed, being referenced by the
> author of the original posting, was written by a Chinese author
> in collaboration with a missionary and the book was lent to me by
> Chinese friends who are from Taiwan and who believe in its accuracy.
> Others have written books making the same claim as the one I read,
> but these other books I have not read.
Thanks for this; I guess we will have to leave the matter here for
the time being.
If you are genuinely interested in the subject, you would be doing
yourself a disservice not to check also for comparison the mainstream
views of Chinese etymology. I'd give the same advice to your Chinese
friends in Taiwan. This is a fascinating subject!
I appreciate that you have no way of knowing if I am right or wrong.
You also have no way of knowing if your own source (still uncited!!)
was right or wrong.
So I am going to repeat with emphasis my main point. There is a lot
of rubbish which is published on biblical matters. Hovind, Baugh,
Watts, etc -- many recognized as cranks even by other creationists!
When quoting stuff you have no way of evaluating, it would be good to
give references, and make clear that what you write is not your own
words, but is presented as material you find interesting without
being able to confirm it.
If I had not run a search, I would have thought the material
provided was your own!
I am not an expert, but in this case a passing familiarity is
sufficient to recognize the problems. Note that what is required
is an interest in etymology; as with English, being fluent in the
language, or a native speaker, by no means implies any great
understanding of the etymology of the characters.
Your primary source in this instance I have since discovered is
"The Discovery of Genesis",
by Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri
by C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, 1979.
The authors are a Christian missionary and a Chinese convert.
I have not seen this book. It has not caused any kind of major
stir in the study of Chinese. It is not available in local
libraries.
It does not reflect native Chinese understanding of their own
language. The major historical reference for Chinese etymology was
written in about 100 AD by the scholar Xu Shen. His classification
of characters as semantic-phonetic, pictographic, ideographic,
semantic-combined, associative-tranform and borrowed-transfrom
continue to be the main way of classifying characters today, though
modern Chinese scholars of course consider semantic and phonetic
links which Xu Shen had not identified. In particular, there seems
to be a trend to find semantic aspects to the phonetic components
of semantic-phonetic characters.
> So from my vantage point, I don't know who is right or wrong. But
> I will pass what you wrote along to them, and if possible, to the
> author of the book, and see if I can get a helpful comment.
I would be very happy to speak with them directly. You have my
permission to give them my email address. Let them know that I
do not read Chinese, unless it is very simple and I have lots of
spare time to go through it with my dictionary!
I'd still like some kind of reference...
> I thank you for your thoughtfulness, courtesy, and effort in your
> formulation of your reply.
You're very welcome. It was fun. I have to give a short talk in
Chinese this coming weekend at my Chinese class end of year
event. The subject is why I want to study Chinese; alas I am
not yet able to convey in Chinese my fascination with the
etymology but I might give it a try... I also will be singing
a nursery rhyme with other class mates; which gives you a rough
idea of my skills. :-)
-------------------------end second extract----------------------------
If I had time to work on this further, I would change a few
things; but mainly I need to see the Kang and Nelson primary
reference to be completely sure of the characters which are
being discussed by my correspondent.
I now know, for example, that part of the thesis of Kang and
Nelson is that the ancient Chinese preserved some of the
scarificial and religious practices of Noah; hence the
example of
Noble Person + Sheep = beautiful
by some convoluted set of reasons relating to sacrifices.
Cheers -- Chris
Peter Seebach
Adam Marczyk <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote:
>I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, if you're still reading this thread, would you
>care to work this up into a FAQ? We can help with XHTML coding and other
>formatting issues if needed.
Someone pointed me back at this thread.
I could probably turn it into a FAQ. I'm not one of nature's reliable or
focused workers at heart, but I could easily write it up better, especially
if I could find my other dictionary.
Adam Marczyk
> In article <uf8fmo8...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Adam Marczyk <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote:
> >I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, if you're still reading this thread, would you
> >care to work this up into a FAQ? We can help with XHTML coding and other
> >formatting issues if needed.
>
> Someone pointed me back at this thread.
>
> I could probably turn it into a FAQ. I'm not one of nature's reliable or
> focused workers at heart,
Heh. Very few people who work on the t.o. archive are. It's not necessarily a
handicap. ;)
> but I could easily write it up better, especially
> if I could find my other dictionary.
Would you be willing to do so? I think this is a claim that deserves treatment
on the archive, especially if it's as widespread as Harlequin pointed out. Chris
Ho-Stuart's post in this thread looks just as good; if you're interested and
he's willing, you could work with him to combine these two posts into one FAQ
(or they could be done separately -- whatever works best).
Doug Weller
>
>Would you be willing to do so? I think this is a claim that deserves treatment
>on the archive, especially if it's as widespread as Harlequin pointed out. Chris
>Ho-Stuart's post in this thread looks just as good; if you're interested and
>he's willing, you could work with him to combine these two posts into one FAQ
>(or they could be done separately -- whatever works best).
Please!
Doug
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Bill Rogers
<snip interesting post for length>
>
> Other, similar, claims have been made. They are just as intellectually
> bankrupt. One page gives the citation:
>
> For more information, please refer to the book "The Discovery of
> Genesis - How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese
> Language", by C.H. Kang and Ether R. Nelson, Concordia Press, 1979.
>
> I am uninclined to spend long hours poring over a book that is being used
> for such painful nonsense as the above claims.
>
> -s
Nice post. In addition to the silliness of the etymological arguments,
doesn't it seem odd to them that God would embed the story of genesis
in the Chinese written language, but then wait something like 1500
years before sending the Jesuits to tell them about Jesus.
Lee Sau Dan
> : >> 1. The Chinese word for god means "heaven emperor",
> : Just a matter of translation. Do you take it serious?
> : The Protestants translate it as "heaven father" or simply
> : "god". So, what does that say? The Islamic god (Allah)
> : is translated into Chinese as "real/true lord". Does
> : that mean it is "real" (to be
Yusuf> how does it translate into? (they are supposed to be the
Yusuf> same BTW)
Allah is <zhen1zhu3>, where <zhen1> means "real, true" and <zhu3>
means "master, lord".
> : That's nonsense. The Chinese culture has been
> : multi-deity.
Yusuf> really? I thought it did eventually develop into some sort
Yusuf> monotheism or monolatery.
I don't think so. There are at least 2 major religions in Chinese
tradition: Buddhism and Taoism. Buddhism is god-less, while Taoism is
... you can say god-less, depending on what you think is "god". Most
people, however, actually believe in a hybrid of Buddhism and Taoism,
although they think that's "Buddhism". In this hybrid, there are many
many gods. People worship different gods for different things. There
is a (or many) god for sea-going, a god for the kitchen, a god for
fortunes, gods for luck, love, family, etc.
Peter Seebach
Bill Rogers <bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net> wrote:
>Nice post. In addition to the silliness of the etymological arguments,
>doesn't it seem odd to them that God would embed the story of genesis
>in the Chinese written language, but then wait something like 1500
>years before sending the Jesuits to tell them about Jesus.
Heh. Maybe He's very patient.
Peter Seebach
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Please!
But his was *WAY* better than mine. Wow.
Harlequin
> So I am going to repeat with emphasis my main point. There is a lot
> of rubbish which is published on biblical matters. Hovind, Baugh,
> Watts, etc -- many recognized as cranks even by other creationists!
True, but these claims are found in the AiG website, the ICR website,
and Walt Brown's website. So it not just the Hovind types that are
making the claim. It looks most of the YEC field has accepted these
claims as factual.
Yusuf B Gursey
: > : >> 1. The Chinese word for god means "heaven emperor",
:
: > : Just a matter of translation. Do you take it serious?
:
: > : The Protestants translate it as "heaven father" or simply
: > : "god". So, what does that say? The Islamic god (Allah)
: > : is translated into Chinese as "real/true lord". Does
: > : that mean it is "real" (to be
: Yusuf> how does it translate into? (they are supposed to be the
: Yusuf> same BTW)
: Allah is <zhen1zhu3>, where <zhen1> means "real, true" and <zhu3>
: means "master, lord".
thanks. this is what I was looking for.
: > : That's nonsense. The Chinese culture has been
: > : multi-deity.
: Yusuf> really? I thought it did eventually develop into some sort
: Yusuf> monotheism or monolatery.
: I don't think so. There are at least 2 major religions in Chinese
: tradition: Buddhism and Taoism. Buddhism is god-less, while Taoism is
: ... you can say god-less, depending on what you think is "god". Most
: people, however, actually believe in a hybrid of Buddhism and Taoism,
: although they think that's "Buddhism". In this hybrid, there are many
: many gods. People worship different gods for different things. There
: is a (or many) god for sea-going, a god for the kitchen, a god for
: fortunes, gods for luck, love, family, etc.
thanks. I thought these were regarded as manifestations of Heaven.
Bart Mathias
> [...] There are at least 2 major religions in Chinese
> tradition: Buddhism and Taoism. Buddhism is god-less, while Taoism
> is .... you can say god-less, depending on what you think is
> "god". Most people, however, actually believe in a hybrid of
> Buddhism and Taoism, although they think that's "Buddhism". In
> this hybrid, there are many many gods. People worship different
> gods for different things. There is a (or many) god for
> sea-going, a god for the kitchen, a god for fortunes, gods for
> luck, love, family, etc.
Much of Christianity is the same. Such gods are called "saints," and
their idols placed in appropriate places (St. Christopher on the
dashboard of one's car, etc.). Or, like St. Valentine or Nicholas,
they may have their own days of worship.
Bart
Peter Seebach
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Much of Christianity is the same. Such gods are called "saints," and
>their idols placed in appropriate places (St. Christopher on the
>dashboard of one's car, etc.). Or, like St. Valentine or Nicholas,
>they may have their own days of worship.
I don't care if it rains or freezes / long as I've got my plastic Jesus...
No, wait. :)
Peter T. Daniels
Messrs. Christopher and Valentine were demoted years ago.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Much of Christianity is the same. Such gods are called
>> "saints," and their idols placed in appropriate places
>> (St. Christopher on the dashboard of one's car, etc.). Or,
>> like St. Valentine or Nicholas, they may have their own days of
>> worship.
Peter> Messrs. Christopher and Valentine were demoted years ago.
How can they be demoted? Any ceremony? On what grounds?
Are they already deceased when they were demoted? Could deceased
people be promoted, then?
JWLarson
claimed to
> > > show that the Chinese originally worshipped only one God.
> > >
> > > 2. The word "create" has roots of "breathe", "dust", "walking", and
> "alive",
> > > and this ties into the Genesis story of breath breathed into dust.
> > >
> > > 3. The word "boat" has roots of "vessel", "8", and "people", clearly
> > > referring to Noah's ark.
> > >
> > > 4. The word for "rebellion" or "confusion" has components meaning
"tongue"
> > > and "journey" (or "right leg").
The greater part of this thread appears to have dropped out of the
newsgroup, but I see no rebuttals of this.
Personally, I find such claims UTTERLY unconvincing. Coincidence, the
common human psychology and mythology, and the commonality of human
experience are quite enough to explain such connections.
1) Judeo-Christianity has no monopoly on monotheism. This could just as
easily tie to Zorastrianism or worship of Rah or some unknown religion that
died out. Or it could have no significance or link at all
2) The only thing conspicuous or unique in this list is "dust" and it should
be safe to say thats coincidence. Plenty of creation myths worldwide have
references to people being created from dust, dirt, clay, mud, sand. This
does not mean it happened.
"One should not make the error of believing, however, that just because a
myth is known throughout the world, it must necessarily reflect an actual
occurrence. The near-universality of a flood story is no more proof that a
flood once covered the earth than the widespread belief in a Fall-of-the-Sky
myth is proof that the sky once actually fell."
Quoted from:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3570_origin_myths_12_7_2000.asp
3) It shouldn't be surprising that boat is related to "vessel" and "people",
since if a boat is anything it is a vessel to carry people. As far as 8
goes, plenty of boats are just big enough for about 8 people. 8 also has
significance in buddhism.
4) I fail to see anything Biblical here at all. Maybe a tie to the tower of
battle? Do you think the Hebrews where the only people to see that
different languages, different tongues, cause confusion? Moreover, I'd be
curious to know if using the word "tongue" for language in the English
versions of the Bible is a feature of English or a feature of the original
nontranslated text. Regardless, very unimpressive.
Derek Stevenson
news:m3vg94f...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> Messrs. Christopher and Valentine were demoted years ago.
>
>
> How can they be demoted? Any ceremony? On what grounds?
>
> Are they already deceased when they were demoted? Could deceased
> people be promoted, then?
Well, yeah. That's essentially how someone gets to be a saint in the first
place.