Our Websites

Chinese Language Goes Back to Genesis

The Discovery of Genesis

You may say that I am reading between the lines here, but the evidence gathered to show that the Chinese language goes back to Genesis is astonishing. The research began in the 1920’s and 30’s by Pastor C. H. Kang. It was during a hospital visit with a very intelligent woman that Pastor Kang was confronted with the theory of evolution. Feeling embarrassed that he did not have the scientific evidence to show support for the Creation account, Pastor Kang remembered a footnote in a Mandarin textbook that was used by a missionary.The Chinese character for the word “ship” was a combination of three symbols; vessel, eight, and mouth. Putting these three characters together formed the word “boat.” Over the next 40 years, the research and thoughts would be put into book form and today the book The Discovery of Genesis contains dozens of examples of how the truths of Genesis are found hidden in the Chinese language.


vessel + eight + mouth (family member) = Ship


dust + (breath of) life + (from God’s) mouth + motion = Creation


tree (of knowledge) + tree (of life) + command (from God) = Forbidden


Lamb + (above) me = Righteousness

Spread the word | Share this post: Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Pin on Pinterest
Email this to someone

9 Responses to Chinese Language Goes Back to Genesis

  1. Mike Ayala October 8, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    Hi Eric,

    I once bought a very old dictionary at an auction which in the front pages had an history of language map. It is amazing how secular historians showed how all languages went back to one original language and all the proofs they supplied. It also showed a on the map the path and progression of all languages from the Middle East. One would have thought the authors were continuing Genesis Chapters 10 and 11.

    God bless and protect you all.

    Mike Ayala

  2. Jack Napper October 8, 2010 at 8:54 am #

    The Chinese glyph for ship is made up of pictographs for “vessel,” “eight,” and “mouth,” indicating the eight passengers on Noah’s ark.

    Kang, C. H. and Ethel R. Nelson, 1979. The Discovery of Genesis, St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.
    van Arnhem, Cees, 2002. The Genesis site: Chinese characters.

    1. The Chinese character for boat (chuan 2) consists of the boat radical on the left and a phonetic element on the right. The phonetic element has two parts. The upper part is a primitive ideograph for “divide,” though it looks the same as the character for “eight.” The lower part is the pictograph for “mouth.” However, these two elements have only phonetic significance (Wright 1996; Wright n.d.).

    2. The “vessel” on the left side of the glyph is a pictograph of a dugout canoe, nothing like an ark.

    3. According to the Bible, Noah’s ark carried very many more than eight mouths.

    4. No flood myths from China include an ark with eight passengers.

    Wright, Mike. n.d. Do Chinese characters tell us something about Genesis? (you’ll have to google it as posting links is prohibited)


  3. ant bourdon October 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    I think you are losing your time. Arguing like you are doing is not arguing against the Bible because it doesn’t add any credibility to the Bible if Hebrews are linked to the Chinese or not. We all pretty know that every language in the world are linked between them for many words travelled around the world because of trades since ancient time. I wouldn’t argue to the fact that many words in French are similar to those in English. Does it add any Truth to the English or French literature? The only thing it could say is that the writings travelled between languages or that the writings are more ancient than both languages. It seems as if you are trying to argue that the stories in the Bible are not more ancient than the Hebrew and Chinese languages. So what? The story could have travelled after the creation of both languages. The argument you are trying to do is that there is no link at all between both languages. Why is it that you need to argue on that? Were there no trade between those people that could create words with strange similarities? If both languages have no similarities at all, then it means that there were no trades. One could say that every language on the Earth comes from a single one, but another one could argue easily that words travelled between languages after the creation of languages and that similarities are well explained by trade instead of common descent of languages(but this is kind of strange that the same people trying to say languages do not come from the same first language are those who argue that we all come from a single cell; How strange!). So, you could just have said that argument and you wouldn’t have to believe in a global flood unless you are SO interested, well…. not in knowing why words are written like they are written, but interested in not knowing why they are written that way. I’m wondering why someone can be SO interested in not knowing something. It’s like some atheists are doing in the Internet. They are desperate in not knowing where the Universe comes from. How can it be that everyone is in search of knowledge and that at the same time, these people want to spread a “we do not know something and we are proud of it and everyone should be proud of that like we are”. How can someone be proud of it ignorance?

  4. Rob Johnson October 8, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    Actually Jack. Every culture around the world has stories of a Great Flood. The American Indians have an oral story of a great Chief that saved the human race and all the animals “in a canoe”. Again, a canoe is nothing like the huge Ark depicted in the Bible. But don’t you think that after years of telling a story over and over certain facts degrade over time and generations??? I highly doubt a Chief fit all the animals in a canoe so you can deduce by reason that it was probably a much greater water vessel than a silly canoe.

  5. Eric Hovind October 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    Mike, Don’t know if you still have the dictionary, but it would be really cool to see that. If you have it please send me a picture or a scan of that if you are able.

    Jack, I saw that online, however Wright does not outright deny some of the information, he just says that he believes that Kang took it too far. Still some very interesting stuff. If I were you Jack, I would repent of my sin and trust in Christ! Kind of an important thing to take care of while you are still breathing.

  6. Julie Collins October 9, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    this is very interesting. more and more proof of a young civilization and a young earth.

    jack, i love your lack of correct citations. and the fact that it has no date, so it could be 50 years old. dispite that, i also like how you just deny the information. you do not even give a good refutation.

  7. Jack Napper October 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Jack, I saw that online, however Wright does not outright deny some of the information, he just says that he believes that Kang took it too far.

    You assume that I didn’t bother to actually read through Wright’s site. If you are looking for a glaring statement of “Creationists are full of it” you’ll be disappointed. To the reach the conclusion you did is completely laughable.

    If I were you Jack, I would repent of my sin and trust in Christ! Kind of an important thing to take care of while you are still breathing.

    Is that really the best counter argument you’ve got? Some faer mongering? Why not actually address the claims made by Wright?

    What’s the next blog entry going to be Eric? More examples of Christians twist history/mythologies to lend credibility to your own? Some of my favorites:

    Fu Xi (Fu Hsi) was really Noah!?!?!
    Quezacotl (Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan/Ququmatz/etc.) was really Jesus?!?!?!?

  8. Paul Robertson October 9, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    Re: Jack Nappers Response


    Now granted the Mandarin word for “Ship” Now phoenetic response aside, the reasoning behind the symbol not looking like an Ark but more like a dugout canoe does not mean that it couldn’t represent an Ark. Does not a canoe and a ark carry people over water? Are not both made out of wood? Are not both without sails?

    You are right in the sense of the Ark carrying more than 8 mouths on it. However it did carry only eight Humans. (Noah, his three sons, and their wives).

    Just because no myths in China are around now about a flood does not mean there weren’t any. And honestly have you read every book in China? No? So how do you know there aren’t any ancient chineese flood myths around?

    And in the example there were the other words for Forbidden, and Creation. So can you tell me how those combination of symbols mean something else?

  9. Nigel McNaughton October 11, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    Wait is Julie “Darwin recanted” Collins really berating someone else about citations? That’s a laugh.