Sandslice

Ware wa konran shiteiru.

In graemlin, that would translate to

Just surfin' the net as usual, when I smacked headlong into the most mind-boggling argument I've ever seen... that archaic Chinese supports Genesis.

Knowing some Japanese myself, I decided to check out some of these claims. (Yes, it qualifies, since the kanji system used by the Japanese was completely derived from Chinese.)

The ICR report is here: <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-169.htm" target="_blank">Creative Hand of God in the Chinese Language</a>

Another one is here:
<a href="http://www.arky.org/museum/search/misc/aclsc.htm" target="_blank">Another one like the one before</a>

Incidentally, the second one is the exact same article on Hovind's webjoke. No, it actually has one more example than Hovind, but is otherwise verbatim.

I don't know if this is complete bullshit, or not; however, at least in Japanese, their boat example fails.

They have three symbols to make the word "boat" (Jp. fune.) "Vessel" "eight" "people." Now, what I think the writers who came up with this think, is that we should be ignorant of the fact that their word "vessel" is actually "boat."

<a href="http://www.nuthatch.com/kanji/demo/radicals.html" target="_blank">Kiki's Kanji Dictionary</a> (You'll need Japanese text support, SJIS, to view this.) is my proof.

Yes, the left part ("vessel") is read fune and means "boat." Worse yet for their case, Noah's ark is actually [i]hakobune[/i.]

Hako means box, and is made of the symbols Bamboo, Tree, and Eye. Bune is actually fune; in combination words, F often becomes B or P. But the symbol used for this fune is the one to which I alluded, the one they called "vessel."

Someone please tell me that this "argument from Bei-jing" is just more bullshit, and help a bloke out?

Zadok001

Well, the holes are obvious. No direct references to God. Note the phrase "which we believe to be God's hands reaching down from above." Well, I believe they're just hands. In fact, they ARE just hands - That's what the pictogram means. They just happen to coming from the top of the frame, which is zero evidence for them being God's hands.

Basically, this is saying "Because these words show Man being created, it must be Genesis! Haha!" Unfortunately, Man is a 'created' form in every single damn mythos ever created. This could go to support Norse mythos as easily as Biblical.

Then there's the really fun part! They find a pictogram which includes a deity, a human, and the sun. From this, they want to ADD information to Genesis, claiming Adam must have been created at dawn to explain the Sun image. This is funny stuff, really.

They've got an image of what they think is "God" because he his 'head' is the pictogram for Sun. That couldn't POSSIBLY be any funnier, because a few lines later, they mention that the same pictogram can also mean Person. Yay. A picture of a person with a person's head. That ranks right up there with Bottoms for the Divine touch.

They also have this wonderful thing going with solid circles. They mean either "Adult Male" or "Holy." That works fine for a while, using it to mean "God" when it shows up on pictograms of Hands. But then they start trying to say "That's God!" without the little black circles. Whoops.

Look at their second forming of the word "Shen." They have a person, bowed before an image of the Sun (or two people). That's either a guy worshiping the Sun, or it's God without any identifying marks bowing down to Adam and Eve. Of course, they take the second definition, but the first is more apt considering the rest of the pictogram.

Basically, this is a load of bull. I could do the same thing with Arabic writings if I felt like wasting my time. File it in the "You actually believe that???" folder.

Clutch

Favourite phrase: "...whom we can identify as Adam."

Really? Wow! Did that hurt, coming out of your ass like that?

And whaddya know -- in a culture dominated by ancestor-worship, the character for Heaven looks like a person!

Finally, I too am very impressed with the Argument From Things Genesis Doesn't Say. Dawn, dusk, God bending over... here's a bunch of conjectures that go unmentioned in Genesis -- ouch! ow! sorry, I'm pulling these out too -- and therefore, honest, really, this provides independent support for Genesis.

Because, uh... Hey, look! A moose!

Vorkosigan

This topic was extensively covered.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000823&p=" target="_blank">Initial discussion</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001250&p=" target="_blank">AIG Replies</a>

The writer has no idea what he was talking about. The ancient word for "boat" was different from the one we use now. The current version came into widespread use in medieval times, as I wrote in the second thread, I think.
Vorkosigan

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Answerer

Thanks man, Vork, I was trying to find the previous thread until I saw yours.

Sandslice

Vork: So I wasn't that far off base. Thanks go to all.

kctan

Hi Sandslice,
Being the resident chink here, all I can say is that it's just a pile of crap. Anyone who knows something about chinese cultures & can read or write chinese can tear it apart easily.