• ベストアンサー
  • 困ってます

英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします

Now, when we compare teh account of the creation and of man given by the doctrine of evolution with that given in the Bible, we see at once that the two are in different regions. The purpose of giving the accounts is diffrent; the spirit and character of the accounts is different; the details are altogether different. The comparison must take note of the difference of spirit and aim before it can proceed at all. It is then quite certain, and even those who contend for the literal interpretation of this part of the Bible will generally admit, that the purpose of the revelation is not to teach science at all. It is to teach great spiritual and moral lessons, and it takes the factsof nature as they appear to ordinary people.When the creation of man is mentioned there is clearly no intention to say by whta processes this creation was effected or how much time it took to work out those processes. The narrative is not touched by the question, 'Was this a single act done in a moment or a process lasting throughmillions of years?' The writerof the Book of Genesis sees the earth peopled,as we may say, by many varieties of plants of animals. he asserts that God made them all, and made them resemble each other and differ from each other He knows nothing and says nothing of the means used to produce their resemblances or their diferrences. he takes them as he see them , and speakes of their creation as God's work. Had he been commisoned to teach his people the science of the matter, he would have had to put a most serious obstacle in the way of their faith. They would have found it almost impossible to belive in a process of creation so utterly unlike all their own experience. And it would have been quite useless to them besides, since their science was not in such a condition as to enable them to coordinate this doctrine with any other. As science it would have been dead; and as spiritual truth it would have been a hindrance.

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 英語
  • 回答数2
  • 閲覧数128
  • ありがとう数7

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.2
  • sayshe
  • ベストアンサー率77% (4555/5904)

さて、進化論によってなされた森羅万象や人間の説明と聖書でなされているそれらの説明を比較してみると、それら2つが異なる分野に属していることがすぐに分かります。説明をする目的が、異なっています; 説明の意図や性格が異なっているのです; 詳細も全く異なります。説明は、その意図や目的の違いに注意を払わなければ、そもそも説明を進めることが出来ません。それ故、黙示の目的が、科学を教えることでは決してないと言うことは、全くはっきりしていますし、聖書のこの部分の文字通りの解釈を論ずる人々でさえ、そのことはおおむね認めるでしょう。黙示は、偉大な精神と道徳上の教訓を教えることです、それで、自然の事実を普通の人々の目に映るままに取り上げています。人間の創造について言及する時、この創造がいかなる過程によって影響を受けたのか、こうした過程を解決するためにどれほどの時間がかかったのかを述べる意図は、明らかに、全くありません。その物語は、疑問について言及していません。これは、一瞬のうちになされた単一の行為だったのでしょうか、それとも、数百万年に渡って続いた過程だったのでしょうか?創世記を書いた人は、地上に多種多様の植物や動物が住みつくのを目にして、神がその全てをお造りになった、そして、それらを互いに似かよわせ、また、異ならせた、と説いているのだと言ってよいでしょう。創世記を書いた人は、こうした類似点や相違点を生み出すのに用いられた手段については何も知りませんし、何も言っていないのです。彼は、彼がそれらを目にするままに取り上げ、それらの創造が神の御業であると言っているのです。仮に彼が、人々にその問題の科学について教える様に命じられていたとすれば、彼は、人々を信じさせるためには非常に重大な障害を置くはめになっていたでしょう。人々は、彼らのあらゆる体験とは全く異なる創造の過程を正しいことだと信じるのはほとんど不可能と思ったことでしょう。そして、さらに、それは、人々にとっては全く無益なことだったでしょう、なぜならば、人々の科学は、人々が、こうした説(進化論)を他のものと調和させることが出来る様な状況にはなかったからです。科学としては、この説(進化論的説明)は、興味を起こさせない死んだものであり、精神的真実としては、この説は、障害となっていたことでしょう。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

丁寧な和訳ありがとうございました。

その他の回答 (1)

  • 回答No.1

私たちは創造の聖書で与えられたそれと進化論によって与えられた男のTEHアカウントを比較すると、今、我々はかつて2が異なる地域にあることで、参照してください。アカウントを与える目的は、切り抜いたです。アカウントの精神と文字が異なります。詳細です 全く異なる。比較は精神の違いに注意して、それがすべてで進める前に目指していなければなりません。その後、非常に確実であり、聖書のこの部分の文字通りの解釈を争う人も含めて、一般的に啓示の目的は全く科学を教えることではないことを、認めるだろう。それは偉大な精神的、道徳的な教訓を教えることであり、彼らが表示されることがfactsof自然を取り 普通のpeople.Whenに人間の創造はwhtaプロセスによってこの作成が行なわまたはどのくらいの時間それは、それらのプロセスを動作するようにしましたしたと言っても意図が明確に存在しない言及されている。物語は、問題によって触れていない、 「これが現時点で行われ、単一の行為又は年のthroughmillions持続するプロセスだった? ' writerof創世記には、我々が言うことのように地球は動物の植物の多くの品種で、人が住んで見ている。彼は、神がそれらすべてを作り、彼らが互いに似ているし、彼は何も知らないし、その類似点やそのdiferrencesを生成するために使用される手段については何も言っていないが異なるたと主張している。彼は、彼がそれらを見るように、それらを取り、神の作品として、その作成のスピークス。彼は彼の人々に問題の科学を教えるためにcommisonedされていたが、彼は彼らの信仰の道に最も深刻な障害物を入れなければならなかったでしょう。 彼らはそれがほとんど不可能、すべて自分の経験とは違ってとても全く創造の過程で信じことがわかったでしょう。他の、この教義を調整することを可能にするように彼らの科学はこのような状態ではなかったので、それは、他にも彼らにかなり役に立たないされていると思います。科学として、それは死んでただろう、と精神的な真実としてそれが障害されていると思います。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からの補足

引き続き回答を募集しています。翻訳機を使ったみたいなので・・・

関連するQ&A

  • 英語に自信のある方和訳お願い致します

    Admitting as is historically and in fact the case , that it was the mission of the Hebrew race to lay the foundation of religion upon the earth, and that Providence used this people specially for this purpose, is it not our businessand ourduty to look and see how this has reall been done? notformingfor ourselves theories of what a revelation ought to be or [of] how we, if entrusted with the task, would have made one, but enquiring ho it haspleased God to do it. In all his theoriesof the world, man has at first deviated widely from the truth,and has only gradually come to see how far otherwise God has ordered things than the first daring speculator had supposed. It has been popularly assumed that the Bible, bearing the stampof divine authority, must be complete, perfect, and unimpeachble in all itsparts, and a thousand difficulties and incoherent doctrines have sprung out of this theory. Men have proceeded in the matterof theology, as they did with physical sciencebefore inductive philosophy sent them to the feet of nature and bid them learnin patience and obedience the lessons whichsh[she=nature] had to teach. Dogma and groundless assumption occupy the place of modest enquiry after truth, while at the same time the upholders of these theories claim credit for humility and submissivenss. Thisis exactly inverting the fact; the humble scholr of trut is not he who, taking his stand upon the traditions of rabbins,Christian fathers, or schoolmen, insists upon bending facts to his unyielding standard, but he who is willing to accept such teaching as it has pleased Divine Providence to afford, without murmuring that it has not been furnished more copiously or clearly.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    We may fairly ask,' he argues, of those persons who consider physical science a fit subject for revelation, what point they can imagine short of a communication of Omniscience at which such a revelation might have stopped without imperfections of omission, less in degree, but similar in kind, to that which they impute to the existing narrative of Moses? A revelation of so much only of astronomy as was known to Copernicus would have seemed imperfect after the discoveries of Newton; and a revelation of the science of Newton would have appeared defective to La Place: a revelation of all the chemical knowledge of the eighteenth century would have been as deficient in comparison with the information of the present day, as what is now known in this science will probably appear before the termination of another age; in the whole circle of sciences there is not one to which this argument may not be extended, until we should require from revelation a full development of all the mysterious agencies that uphold the mechanism of the material world.' Buckland's question is quite inapplicable to the real difficulty, which is, not that circumstantial details are omitted -- that might reasonably be expected -- but that what is told, is told so as to convey to ordinary apprehensions an impression at variance with facts. We are indeed told that certain writers of antiquity had already anticipated the hypothesis of the geologist, and two of the Christian fathers, Augustine and Episcopius, are referred to as having actually held that a wide interval elapsed between the first act of creation, mentioned in the Mosaic account, and the commencement of the six days' work. If, however, they arrived at such a conclusion, it was simply because, like the modern geologist, they had theories of their own to support, which led them to make somewhat similar hypotheses.

  • 英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします。

    ' Accrding to thsi explanation , the first chapter og Genesis does not pretend (as has been generally assumed) to be a cosmogony or an account of the original creation of the material universe. The only cosmogony which it contains,in that sense at least, is confined to be sublime decraration of the first verse, "In the begnning God created the heavens and the earth." The inspired record ,thus stepping over an interval of indefinite ages with which man has no direct concern, proceeds at once to narrate the events preparatory to the introduction of man on the scean; employing phraseology strictly faithful to the appearances(斜字) which would have met the eye of man, could he have been a spectator on the earth of whta passed during those six days. Allthis has been commonly supposed to be more detailed account of the general truth announced in the five verse, in short, a cosmogony: such was the idea of Josephus[37-100]; such probably was the idea of our translators;for their version "without form and void," points to the primeval chaos, out of which all things were then supposed to emerge; and these words, standing in limine, have tended, perhaps more than anything else, to foster the idea of a cosmogony in the minds of general readers to this very day.'

  • 英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします

    The aim of the physicianin the treatment of insanity is to bring the means at his command to bear, directly or indirectly , on the disordered nerve elemnt. But, in striving to do this, he soon learns with how many bodily organs and functionshe has really to do. to callmind a function of the brain may lead to much misapprehension, if it be thereby supposed that the brain is the only organ which is concerned in the function of mind. There is not an organ in the body which is not in intimate relation with the brain by means of its paths of nervous communication, which has not , so to speak, a special corresopondance with it through internuncial fibres, and which does not, therefore, affect more or less plainly and specially its[ist=the brain's] function as an organ of mind. It is not merely that a parpitating heart may cause anxiety and apprehension, or a disorderedliver[may cause] gloomy feelings, but there are good reasons to believe that eachorgan has its specific influence on the constituiton and function of mind; an influence not yet to be set forth scientifically., because it is exerted on that unconscious mental life which is the basis of all that we consciously feel and think. were the heart of one man to be placed in the body of another it would probably make no difference in the circulation of the blood, but it might make a real difference in the temper of his mind. so close is the physiological sympathy of parts in the commonwealth of the body that it is necessary in the physiological study of mind to regard it as a function of the whole organism, as complehending the whole bodily life.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It might be thought to have been less easy to reconcile in men's minds the Copernican view of the opening chapter of Genesis.It can scarcely be aside that thin chapter is not intended in part to teach and convey at least some physical truth, and taking it's words in their plain sense,it manifestly gives a view of the universe adverse to that of modern sciences. It represents the sky as a watery vault in which the sun,moon and stars are set.But the discordance of this description with facts does not appear to have been so palpable to the minds of the seventeenth century as it is to us.The mobility of the earth was a proposition startling not only to faith but to the senses.The difficulty involved in this belief having been successfully got over ,other discrepancies dwindled in importance .The brilliant progress of astronomical science subdued the minds of men;the controversy between faith and knowledge fell to slumber ; the story of Galileo and the Inquisition become a school commonplace ,the doctrine of the earth's mobility found it's way into children's catechisms , and the limited views of the nature of the universe indicated in the Old Testment ceased to be felt as religious difficulties.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It is refreshing to return to the often-echoed remark, that it could not have been the object of a Divine revelation to instruct mankind in physical science, man having had faculties bestowed upon him to enable him to acquire this knowledge by himself. This is in fact pretty generally admitted; but in the application of the doctrine, writers play at fast and loose with it according to circumstances. Thus an inspired writer may be permitted to allude to the phenomena of nature according to the vulgar view of such things, without impeachment of his better knowledge; but if he speaks of the same phenomena assertively, we are bound to suppose that things are as he represents them, however much our knowledge of nature may be disposed to recalcitrate. But if we find a difficulty in admitting that such misrepresentations can find a place in revelation, the difficulty lies in our having previously assumed what a Divine revelation ought to be. If God made use of imperfectly informed men to lay the foundations of that higher knowledge for which the human race was destined, is it wonderful that they should have committed themselves to assertions not in accordance with facts, although they may have believed them to be true? On what grounds has the popular notion of Divine revelation been built up? Is it not plain that the plan of Providence for the education of man is a progressive one, and as imperfect men have been used as the agents for teaching mankind, is it not to be expected that their teachings should be partial and, to some extent, erroneous? Admitted, as it is, that physical science is not what the Hebrew writers, for the most part, profess to convey, at any rate, that it is not on account of the communication of such knowledge that we attach any value to their writings, why should we hesitate to recognise their fallibility on this head?

  • 和訳確認お願いします。(長文です)

    It is obvious that, in primitive communities, peasants, left to themselves, would not have parted with the slender surplus upon which the warriors and priests subsisted, but would have either produced less or consumed more. At first, sheer force compelled them to produce and part with the surplus. Gradually, however, it was found possible to induce many of them to accept an ethic according to which it was their duty to work hard, although part of their work went to support others in idleness. By this means the amount of compulsion required was lessened, and the expenses of government were diminished. 「part of their work went on to support others in idleness」の部分です。 (1)goとtoのここでの使い方と用法は?(「費やされる」の意味ですか?toは「~するために」で副詞用法) (2)in idlenessの使い方は?(1.「怠惰な人」のように、名詞othersを修飾する形容詞用法、2.「なにもせずに養う」のように、動詞supportを修飾する副詞用法。

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The Romish Church,it is presumed,adheres to the old views to the present day. Protestant instincts,however,in the 17th century were strongly in sympathy with the augmentation of science[science=scientific knowledge],and consequently Reformed Churches more easily allowed themselves to be helped over the difficultly,which, according to the views of inspiration then held and which have survived to the present day,was in reality quite as formidable for them as for those of the old faith. The solution of the difficultly offered by Galileo and others was that the object of a rebelation or divine unveiling of mysteries must be to teach man things which he is unable and must ever remain unable to find out for himself:but not physical truths,for the discovery of which he has faculties specially proved by his Creater.Hence it was not unreasonable that,in regard to matters of fact marely,the Sacred Writings should use the common language and assume the common belief of mankind,without purporting to correct errors upon points morally indifficult.So in regard to such a text as 'The world is established it cannot be moved'[Psalms93.1],though it might imply the sacred penman's ignorance of the fact that the earth does move,yet it does not put forth this opinion as an indispensable point of faith.And this remark is applicable to anumber of texts which presents a similar difficalty.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    I have traced them upwards from the raised beaches and old coast lines of the human period, to the brick clays, Clyde beds, and drift and boulder deposits of the Pleistocene era; and again from them, with the help of museums and collections, up through the mammaliferous crag of England to its red and coral crags; and the conclusion at which I have been compelled to arrive is, that for many long ages ere man was ushered into being, not a few of his humbler contemporaries of the fields and woods enjoyed life in their present haunts, and that for thousands of years anterior to even their appearance, many of the existing molluscs lived in our seas. That day during which the present creation came into being, and in which God, when he had made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind,' at length terminated the work by moulding a creature in His own image, to whom He gave dominion over them all, was not a brief period of a few hours' duration, but extended over, mayhap, millenniums of centuries. No blank chaotic gap of death and darkness separated the creation to which man belongs from that of the old extinct elephant, hippopotamus, and hyæna; for familiar animals, such as the red deer, the roe, the fox, the wild cat, and the badger, lived throughout the period which connected their time with our own; and so I have been compelled to hold that the days of creation were not natural but prophetic days, and stretched far back into the bygone eternity.'

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.