• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

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.

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 英語
  • 回答数4
  • ありがとう数2

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.3
  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2977/4020)

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 pen to paper to analyse some of the popular conciliation theories. ↓ ご質問文では、Believing as we do that if となっておりましたが、原文では、Believing, as we do, that ifと、途中カンマで区切っておりましたので、そちらに沿って訳してみました。 「我々がそうであるように、宗教教育の為の本としての聖書の価値が維持されると信じることは、解釈のあらゆる原理原則を犠牲にし、一般常識を無視して科学的に正しいことを証明しようと骨を折ることによってなされるものではない。しかしそこに含まれる自然に関する間違った見方を正直に認識することにより、我々は人気のある調停理論のいくつかを分析する為に筆を執ることとした。」 The inquiry cannot be deemed a superfluous one, nor one which in the interests of theology had better be let alone. 「疑問はどうでもいいものとも、ましてや神学の利益の為にはほったらかしにして良いものとも言えないのである。」 Physical science goes on unconcernedly pursuing its own paths. 「物理科学は何物にもかまわず己が道を突き進むものだ。」 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. ↓ 原文と比較してタイプミスや、カンマミスなどが多いので下記の原文に沿って訳してみました。 Theology, the science whose object is the dealing of God with man as a moral being, maintains but a shivering existence, shouldered and jostled by the sturdy growths of modern thought, and bemoaning itself for the hostility which it encounters. 「学問としての目的が、善悪を区別できる存在としての人と神との交わりである神学は、恐怖を感じる存在ではなく、揺ぎ無い現代的思考の成長により押しのけられもまれてきた。 そして(神学に対する)敵対心の為に嘆き悲しんでいる。」 Why should this be, unless because theologians persist in clinging to theories of God's procedure towards man, which have long been seen to be untenable? 「進学者達が人に対して神がなさることにしがみつき固執しない限り、何故この学問が長きにわたり支持されないものと見なされねばならないのだろう?」 If, relinquishing theories, they would be content to inquire 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. 「もし理論を放棄することとなれば、彼らはこの行為を実際に行ってきた人間の歴史から調べることもいとわないであろうし、神学上の問題と呼ばれるものはほとんどの部分で、それ自体が消滅するであろう。」

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

ありがとうございます。

その他の回答 (3)

  • 回答No.4
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8999/11085)

以下のとおりお答します。 (shouldred→shouldered, hostlity→hostility, produre→procedure, havelong→have long, inpuire→inquireの誤植と見て訳しました。) 宗教の教本としてバイブルの価値が維持されるべきだとするならば、すべての正常な解釈の原理を犠牲にしたり常識に逆らったりしてまで、それが科学的に正確であることを証明せんと努力することによってではなく、聖書に含まれる自然への間違った見方を率直に認識することによってこそなされるべきである。このように信じるからこそ、私たちはポピュラーな懐柔理論のうちのいくつかを、分析の俎上に乗せたのです。 その質問吟味は余計なものと考えることもできませんし、神学の利益のためにそのままにしておく方がよいというものでもありません。物理学は、無頓着にも自らの道だけを探求し続けます。神学は、道徳的存在者としての人間との関係において神を扱うことを目的とする科学である神学は、近代思想の確固たる成長によって担がれ小突き回され、それが遭遇する敵意のゆえに己が身を嘆きながら、ただ震え慄かせるような存在として存続しています。 もし神学者が対人間の神の御業という、長年支持されない状態にあった理論にしがみつき続けるのでないとしたら、なぜこんなことにならなければならないのでしょうか? もしも彼らが理論を放棄して、この御業なるものが実際は何だったのかを、人類史の角度から尋ねる論客にでもなれば、いわゆる神学上の難問もその大部分は、自ら消滅することでありましょう。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

ありがとうございます。

  • 回答No.2

------------------ 宗教の指示の本としてのバイブルの値が維持されることになっている場合に、私たちがそれをするように、信じること、それは、それを証明するために努力することに科学的によってはなりません、強要する、解釈の、および常識に逆らうすべての正常な原理を犠牲にして、だがそれが含んでいる自然の謬見の率直な認識によって、私たちはポピュラーな懐柔理論のうちのいくつかを分析するために置きました。 その質問は余分のものと考えることができません、および、神学のためにそのままにしておかれたほうがよいもの。 物理学はそれ自身のパスを平気で追求し続けます。 神学、そのオブジェクトが取り引きである科学、道徳的行為者として人と得られた、維持する[しかし=]のみ、シバリング生活、近代思想の頑丈な成長によってshouldredされ押された、またhostlityのためにそれ自体を嘆くこと、どれ、それ、encounters.Why、これはそうであるべきですか、でないならば、神学者が神の人へのprodureに関する理論にはりつくことを続けるので、どのhavelong、主張し難く見られる? 場合、理論を放棄して、それらは人類史からのinpuireへのコンテストになるでしょう、この手続きが実際にだったもの、神学のいわゆる難しさはひとりでに消えるでしょう(大部分は)。 --------------- 下記を利用しました。 http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答No.1
  • oignies
  • ベストアンサー率20% (673/3353)

わからない部分だけ抜き出して訳してください。少しはわかるんでしょう??ちがうんだったら質問しないでください。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

関連するQ&A

  • 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.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The reduction of the earth into the state in which we now behold it has been the slowly continued work of ages. The races of organic beings which have populated its surface have from time to time passed away,and been supplanted by others, introduced we know not certainly by what means, but evidently according to a fixed method and order and with a gradually increasing complexity and fitness of organization , until we come to man as the crowning point of all. Geologically speaking, the history of his first appearance is obscure, nor does archaeology do much to clear this obscurity. Science has, however, made some efforts towards tracing man to his cradle, and patient observation and collection of facts much more may perhaps be done in this direction. As for history and tradition, they afford little upon which anything can be built. The human race, like each individual man, has forgotten its own birth, and the void of its early years has been filled up by imagination, and not from genuine recollection. Thus much is clear, that man's existence on earth is brief, compared with the ages during which unreasoning creatures were the sole possessors of the globe.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The diffculties and disputes which attended the first revival of science have recurred in the present century in consequence of the growth of geology. It is in truth only the old question over again-precisely the same point of theology which is involved, although the difficulties which present themselves are fresh. The school books of the present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet [they] assure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old and that it was made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of years-to be [to be=it should be] counted by millions rather than by thousands:and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its first creation to the appearance of man upon its surface. By this broad discrepancy between old and doctrine is the modern mind startled, as were the men of the sixteenth century [startled] when [they were] told that the earth moved.

  • 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。

    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。

    Now, in answer to this objection, I have only to say that no one can have a more lively appreciation than myself of the supreme importance of experimental or historical veri fication, in all cases where the possibility of such verification is attainable. But in cases where such verification is not attainable, what are we to do ? We may clearly do either of two things. We may either neglect to investigate the sub ject at all, or we may Jo our best to investigate it by employ ing the only means of .investigation which are at our disposal. Of these two courses there can be no doubt which is the one that the scientific spirit prompts. The true scientific spirit desires to examine everything, and if in any case it is refused the best class of instruments wherewith to conduct the examination, it will adopt the next best that are available. In such cases science clearly cannot be forwarded by neglect ing to use these instruments, while her cause may be greatly advanced by using them with care. This is proved by the fict that, in the science of psychology, nearly all the con siderable advances which have been made, have been made, not by experiment, but by observing mental phenomena and reasoning from these phenomena deductively. In such cases, therefore, the true scientific spirit prompts us, not to throw away deductive reasoning where it is so frequently the onlyinstrument available, but rather to cany it with us, and to use it as not abusing it.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The task which sundry modern writers have imposed upon themselves is to prove, that the Mosaic narrative, however apparently at variance with our knowledge, is essentially, and in fact true, although never understood properly until modern science supplied the necessary commentary and explanation. Two modes of conciliation have been propounded which have enjoyed considerable popularity, and to these two we shall confine our attention. The first is that originally brought into vogue by Chalmers and adopted by the late Dr. Buckland in his Bridgewater Treatise, and which is probably still received by many as a sufficient solution of all difficulties. Dr. Buckland's treatment of the case may be taken as a fair specimen of the line of argument adopted, and it shall be given in his own words.

  • 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。

    A third opinion has been suggested both by learned theologians and by geologists, and on grounds independent of one another -- viz., that the days of the Mosaic creation need not be understood to imply the same length of time which is now occupied by a single revolution of the globe, but successive periods each of great extent; and it has been asserted that the order of succession of the organic remains of a former world accords with the order of creation recorded in Genesis. This assertion, though to a certain degree apparently correct, is not entirely supported by geological facts, since it appears that the most ancient marine animals occur in the same division of the lowest transition strata with the earliest remains of vegetables, so that the evidence of organic remains, as far as it goes, shows the origin of plants and animals to have been contemporaneous: if any creation of vegetables preceded that of animals, no evidence of such an event has yet been discovered by the researches of geology. Still there is, I believe, by no sound critical or theological objection to the interpretation of the word day' as meaning a long period.' Archdeacon Pratt also summarily rejects this view as untenable: