• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!


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.


  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数213
  • ありがとう数0


  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8146/10049)

あまりきれいな訳でなくてすみませんが、以下のとおりお答えします。 創世記の開始章についてのコペルニクスの見解を人々の心の中に調和させるのは、それほど容易ではなかったと考えられるかもしれない。その短い章は、部分的なりとある物理的な真実を教え、伝えるように意図されているが、そんなことはないと度外視することもほとんどできないし、その言葉を平易な意味感覚で捕えれば、それは明白に現代科学とは相反する宇宙の見解を提示している。 それは、太陽、月および星が、そこにはめ込まれた水様性の丸天井として空を表わしている。しかし、この記述の事実との不一致は、我々には明白だが、17世紀の人心にはそれほどに明白とは見えなかったのだ。地球の可動性は、信仰だけでなく意味感覚においても仰天するような提案だった。がこの確信に含まれる困難がうまい具合に克服されたので、他の不一致の重要性は減少していった。 天文学分野の科学が光り輝き、その前進が人々の心を征服した。信仰と知識の間の論争は安らかな眠りに落ちた。ガリレオと異端審問の話が学校での決まり文句になった。地球の可動性の教義が子どもの教義問答に取り込まれ、旧約聖書の中では宇宙的性質について枠付けする見解が示されているが、それが宗教的障害として感じられることに終止符を打ったのである。



  • 和訳お願い致します。

    On the revival science in the 16th century,some of the earliest conclusions at which philosophers arrived were found to be at variance with popular and long-established belief.The Ptolemaic system of astronomy ,which had then full possession of the minds of men,contemplaced the whole visible universe from the earth as the ammovable centre of things. Copernicus changed the earth to an inconspicuous globule, a merely subordinate member of a family of planets , which the terrestrials had untill then foudly imagined to be but [but=only]pendants and ornaments of their own habitation. The Church naturally took a lively interest in the disputes which arose between the philosophers of the new school and those who adhered to the old doctrines,inasmuch as the Hebrew records,the basis of religious faith,manifestly countenanced the opinion of the earth's immobility and certain other views of the univers very incompatible with those propounded by Copernicus. Hence arose the official proceedings against Galileo in consequence of which he submitted to sigh his celebrated recantation,acknowledging that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable from its place is absurb,philosophically false,and formally heretical,because it is dxpressly contrary to the Scripture'and that 'the proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world,norimmovable but that it moves and also with a diurnal motion is absurb,philosophically false,and at least erronesos in faith'.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.

  • 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.'

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    In one respect the theory of Hugh Miller agrees with that advocated by Dr. Buckland and Archdeacon Pratt. Both these theories divest the Mosaic narrative of real accordance with fact; both assume that appearances only, not facts, are described, and that in riddles, which would never have been suspected to be such, had we not arrived at the truth from other sources. It would be difficult for controversialists to cede more completely the point in dispute, or to admit more explicitly that the Mosaic narrative does not represent correctly the history of the universe up to the time of man. At the same time, the upholders of each theory see insuperable objections in details to that of their allies, and do not pretend to any firm faith in their own. How can it be otherwise when the task proposed is to evade the plain meaning of language, and to introduce obscurity into one of the simplest stories ever told, for the sake of making it accord with the complex system of the universe which modern science has unfolded? The spectacle of able and, we doubt not, conscientious writers engaged in attempting the impossible is painful and humiliating. They evidently do not breathe freely over their work, but shuffle and stumble over their difficulties in a piteous manner; nor are they themselves again until they return to the pure and open fields of science.

  • 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.

  • 和訳お願い致します

    The word beginning,' he says, as applied by Moses in the first verse of the book of Genesis, expresses an undefined period of time which was antecedent to the last great change that affected the surface of the earth, and to the creation of its present animal and vegetable inhabitants, during which period a long series of operations may have been going on; which as they are wholly unconnected with the history of the human race, are passed over in silence by the sacred historian, whose only concern was barely to state, that the matter of the universe is not eternal and self-existent, but was originally created by the power of the Almighty.' The Mosaic narrative commences with a declaration that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' These few first words of Genesis may be fairly appealed to by the geologist as containing a brief statement of the creation of the material elements, at a time distinctly preceding the operations of the first day; it is nowhere affirmed that God created the heaven and the earth in the first day, but in the beginning; this beginning may have been an epoch at an unmeasured distance, followed by periods of undefined duration during which all the physical operations disclosed by geology were going on.' The first verse of Genesis, therefore, seems explicitly to assert the creation of the universe; the heaven, including the sidereal systems; and the earth, especially specifying our own planet, as the subsequent scene of the operations of the six days about to be described; no information is given as to events which may have occurred upon this earth, unconnected with the history of man, between the creation of its component matter recorded in the first verse, and the era at which its history is resumed in the second verse: nor is any limit fixed to the time during which these intermediate events may have been going on: millions of millions of years may have occupied the indefinite interval, between the beginning in which God created the heaven and the earth, and the evening or commencement of the first day of the Mosaic narrative.'

  • 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。

    Believing as we do that if the value of the Bible as a book of religious instruction is to be maintained it must be not by striving to prove it scientifically exact, at the expense of every sound principle of interpretation and in defiance of common sense,but by the frank recognition of the erroneous views of nature which it contains, we have put to analyse some of the popular conciliation theories. The inquiry can't be deemed a superfluous one, nor one which in the interests of theology had better be let alone. Physical science goes on unconcernedly pursuing its own paths. Theology,the science whose object is the dealing of Got with man as a moral being,maintains but[but=only] a shivering existence,shouldred and jostled by the sturdy growths of modern thought, and bemoaning itself for the hostlity which it encounters.Why should this be,unless because theologians persist in clinging to theories of God's produre towards man , which havelong been seen to be untenable? If,relinquishing theories,they would be contest to inpuire from the history of man what this procedure has actually been,the so-called difficulties of theology would,for the most part,vanish of themselves.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Our earth then is but one of the lesser pendants of a body[a body=the sun]which is itself only an inconsiderable unit in the vast creation.And now if we withdraw our thoughts for the immensities of space and look into the construction of man's obscure home,the first question is whether it has ever been in any other condition than that in which we now see it,and if so,what are the stages through which it has passed,and what was its first traceable state. Here geology steps in and successfully carriers back the history of earth's crust to a very remote period,until it arrives at a region of uncertainty,where philosophy is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities and pronounces nothing definite. To this region belong the speculation which have been ventured upon as to the original conccretion of the earth and planets our of nebular matter of which the sun may have been the nucles.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Or, again adopting the convenient terminology of Clifford, we must always remember that we can never know the mental . states of any mental beings other than ourselves as objects ; we can only know them as ejects^ or as ideal projections of our own mental states. And it is from this broad fact of psycho logy that the difficulty arises in applying our criterion of mind to particular cases — especially among the lower animals. For if the evidence of mind, or of being capable of choice, must thus always be ejective as distinguished from objective, it is clear that the cogency of the evidence must diminish as we recede from minds inferred to be like our own, towards minds inferred to be not so like our own, passing in a gradual series into not-minds. Or, otherwise stated, although the evidence derived from ejects is practically regarded as good in the case of mental organizations inferred to be closely analogous to our own, this evidence clearly ceases to be trust worthy in the ratio in which the analogy fails ; so that when we come to the case of very low animals — where the analogy is least — we feel uncertain whether or not to ascribe to them any ejective existence. But I must again insist that this fact — which springs immediately but of the fundamental isolation of the individual mind — is no argument against my criterion of mind as the best criterion available; it [it=the fact] tends, indeed, to show that no better criterion can be found, for it shows the hopelessness of seeking such.