Evidence for the Biblical Record

Oh, Peg, Peg, Peg, have you learned no evaluation skills in your years her. of course the Chinese character for ship isn't made up of eight people in a vessel.!!From Inquiry regarding the mythical barge ('Noah's ark'):

quote:

---

The notion that the character in question has anything to do with Noah's ark is simply wrong. It is based on a common misperception about how Chinese characters are constructed, namely that they are basically pictographic (i.e., crude pictures of the thing being named) or ideographic (i.e., that they combine pictures in such a way as to "get across" the idea of the thing or concept being described). Actually, almost all characters in Chinese, including this one, are formed using phonetic principles, although the phonetics in question apply to the language as spoken at the time and place where the character was coined, and not necessarily the way things are pronounced in Modern Standard Chinese. There _are_ a few pictograms, and an even smaller number of true ideograms, but this character isn't one of them.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I haven't seen any credible evidence for Peg's claim. You got some, you trot it out.Google shows zero hits for "Dr. Tong Chock". I can't come with any relevant hits using no quotes. CreationWiki gives two references, one which just repeats the claim and one which is in Chinese. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf has one author with a possibly Chinese name who may or may not know Chinese (his brief bio seems to indicate he may be US-born) and two non-Chines authors.ABE: I've done a lot of reading on both sides of the issue on Noah's Fludde. It didn't happen. Therefore, any claim that rests on the assumption that there was a fludde is prima facie wrong.Edited by JonF, : Added last paragraph

I haven't seen any credible evidence for it yet. You haven't offered any evidence at all. I can't address what doesn't exist.

You are assuming that Chinese characters are pictographic or ideographic. You have not addressed the points raised in Message 214.

Ah, I linked to the wrong message. I meant Message 212:

quote:

---

The notion that the character in question has anything to do with Noah's ark is simply wrong. It is based on a common misperception about how Chinese characters are constructed, namely that they are basically pictographic (i.e., crude pictures of the thing being named) or ideographic (i.e., that they combine pictures in such a way as to "get across" the idea of the thing or concept being described). Actually, almost all characters in Chinese, including this one, are formed using phonetic principles, although the phonetics in question apply to the language as spoken at the time and place where the character was coined, and not necessarily the way things are pronounced in Modern Standard Chinese. There _are_ a few pictograms, and an even smaller number of true ideograms, but this character isn't one of them.

---

So, before you run wild interpreting written Chinese words as phrases made up of the word radicals, you first need to establish whether (for example) the radical for "mouth" as an element means the concept of mouth or the sound of the word for mouth.

Well, I guess nobody wants to present any, you know, evidence that the interpretation of that character as a phrase is valid.