The Discovery of Genesis (2 page)

“If this is not a mere happenstance, there should be other Biblically relevant characters,” reasoned Kang. Quickly he wrote down the character for
to create
, and was astonished as he analyzed the components in this figure for the first time:
is
dust or mud
;
a
mouth
;
the small downward stroke to the left of
indicates
movement or life
; and
means
able to walk.
The text in Genesis 2:7 came to his mind. “Then the Lord God formed man of
dust from the ground
, and breathed [with his
mouth
] into his nostrils the
breath of life
; and man became a living being” (not a baby but an adult,
able to walk
). Dissection of this character stimulated Pastor Kang’s interest and resulted in a search which has lasted four decades.

My personal study into the history of the written Chinese language through various treatises in English found in Harvard’s Chinese-Japanese Yenching Library gave its approximate time of origin as 2500 B.C. This dating is provocative, for it coincides quite closely with the time (2218 B.C.) of the great dispersion of races from the tower of Babel, as calculated from the Biblical genealogies in a recent chronological study.
³

Discussion of this project with other missionaries from the Orient and friends precipitated some questions. How does one know that these characters are actually very ancient and not more recently contrived through the influence of Christian missionaries during the past two or three centuries, for the purpose of promoting their religious concepts? The answer to this is that very basic, fundamental, primitive, and nonreligious kinds of words are involved, including, for example:
come, go, desire, beginning, complete, first, forbidden, garden, drown, cruel, rebellion
, and scores more.

A few friends versed in the Chinese language brought up the possibility that these might be “phonetic” rather than “ideographic” characters. This point will be later discussed. The more ancient forms of all the characters presented have also been researched and bear out the interpretations given, oftentimes being even more explicit.

A third query has been: How does one know that the point of reference for the characters is not a pagan concept rather than a source parallel with our Scriptures? My reply to this points out that the original religion of the ancient Chinese at the time when the written language was being formulated was monotheistic in nature. They had no idols, no mythology, but worshiped a single Supreme Ruler of Heaven. The polytheistic cults of Taoism and Buddhism came about 2,000 years later. As one becomes acquainted with the study and the multiplicity of key words such as
flesh, a lord, reptile, naked, clothing, to hide, sorrow
, for example, it becomes increasingly credible that the ideographic references are to the same historical events as recorded in Genesis. But one must decide for oneself the veracity of the study.

Many long letters passed between Singapore and Stoneham, Massachusetts. When I had a rough manuscript in hand, a trip to Singapore in 1975 at long last allowed me to go over the material with Pastor Kang to our mutual satisfaction. But it was soon apparent that our study was far from complete.

Only one who has attempted to collaborate on a project such as ours can appreciate the frustrations of a 13,000 mile separation and a two-week wait for a reply to a letter. I finally realized that a second visit would be necessary in order to satisfactorily complete the thesis, and this was accomplished in the fall of 1976. This surely would be the last trip! But the end was not yet in sight. Revisions and progress were slow when mixed with both professional and homemaking careers. The summer of 1978 again found me in Singapore. On this trip I was also able to confer with Dr. Andrew Chiu, president of Concordia Seminary in Hong Kong, who enthusiastically endorsed the project.

One very difficult aspect of writing this book has been particularly challenging—to make it readable for both the creationist and evolutionist. Some explanations may appear redundant to those with a good Biblical background but are quite necessary for any who are not well acquainted with the Scriptures. A missionary would be suspect as being sympathetic with creationistic thinking, but I have really tried to remember that I also was once quite ignorant of any concepts of origins other than the evolutionary processes presented during my younger years in public school. I would not want to “turn” anyone “off” by a dogmatic or prejudiced presentation; I prefer to allow room for an honest appraisal of the subject matter introduced.