• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!


It should be borne in mind,' says Dr. Buckland, that the object of the account was, not to state in what manner, but by whom the world was made.' Every one must see that this is an unfounded assertion, inasmuch as the greater part of the narrative consists in a minute and orderly description of the manner in which things were made. We can know nothing as to the object of the account, except from the account itself. What the writer meant to state is just that which he has stated, for all that we can know to the contrary. Or can we seriously beleive that if appealed to by one of his Hebrew hearers or readers as to his intention, he would have replied, My only object in what I have written is to inform you that God made the world; as to the manner of His doing it, of which I have given so exact an account, I have no intention that my words should be taken in their literal meaning? We come then to this, that if we sift the Mosaic narrative of all definite meaning, and only allow it to be the expression of the most vague generalities, if we avow that it admits of no certain interpretation, of none that may not be shifted and altered as often as we see fit, and as the exigencies of geology may require, then may we reconcile it with what science teaches. This mode of dealing with the subject has been broadly advocated by a recent writer of mathematical eminence, who adopts the Bucklandian hypothesis, a passage from whose work we shall quote.


  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数141
  • ありがとう数1


  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8276/10205)

以下のとおりお答えします。(beleiveは、believeの誤植と見て訳しました。) 正直、時空両面で遠い世界のことなので、文意を把握するのに時間がかかってしまいました。しかもその割には納得できる訳になっているかどうか自信ありません。 「説明の目的は」、バックランド博士は言います。「世界がどんな方法で造られたかでなく、誰によって造られたかを述べることだ、ということを心の中に抱いておくべきです」。話の大部分が、事物が造られた方法についての事細かな記述で成っている限りは、根拠のない主張であるということが誰にも分かるはずです。私たちは説明それ自体を除いたら、説明の目的に関して何も知ることができません。 作家の陳述で重要なものは、ちょうど逆様から見て、まさに私たちが知り得るすべてに向けて彼が述べたことです。でなければ、もし、ヘブライ人の聞き手もしくは読み手から(著作の)意図を尋ねられた作家が、「私の書いたものの唯一の目的は、神が世界を造ったとあなたに知らせることです。それをしたときの神の仕方については、私は極めて正確に説明しましたが、私の言葉を文字どおりの意味に取ってもらおうというような意図はありません」と答えているだろう、などとまともに信じられるでしょうか? そうすると、私たちはこういう事態に立ち至るのです。もし私たちが、まったく明確な意味を持つモーゼの話を置き換えて、最も曖昧な概論の表現としてのみそれを認めるなら、もし確かな解釈の余地などはないと認めるなら、しばしば私たちが適切であると見るように、そして地質学の緊急事情が要請していると見るように、置き換えや変更のないものは何もないと認めるなら、私たちはそれを科学が教えるものと調停調和させることになります。この主題を扱うときの仕方が、数理に卓越する最近の作家によって広く主張されました。彼はバックランドの仮説を採用するので、私たちは一節をその著作から引用することになるでしょう。 以上、ご回答まで。





  • 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。

    We pass to the account of the creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed that in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of Genesis, one being comprised in the first chapter and the first three verses of the second, the other commencing at the fourth verse of the second chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically certain that it were useless to ignore it. But even those who may be inclined to contest the fact that we have here the productions of two different writers, will admit that the account beginning at the first verse of the first chapter, and ending at the third verse of the second, is a complete whole in itself. And to this narrative, in order not to complicate the subject unnecessarily, we intend to confine ourselves. It will sufficient for our purpose to enquire, whether this account can be shown to be in accordance with our astronomical and geological knowledge. And for the right understanding of it the whole must be set out, so that the various parts may be taken in connexion with one another.

  • 和訳をお願いします。

     The Japanese word "michikusa" has a nice ring. Since it is derived from horses occasionally stopping to eat roadside grass as they are driven to a destination, it sounds leisurely and pastoral.  It is a common experience that when we look up a word in a dictionary, we get interested in the words listed around the one we look for or search for related words by association, spending an unexpectedly long time over the "michikusa."  Is the time thus spent a waste of time? I believe it is not. It may seem a waste of time if we look at it in terms of the target or task we set out to achieve. But if we look at it in another way, it can also be viewed as providing an opportunity for us to have various new encounters.  Suppose we see someone and talk with the person or attend a meeting. It sometimes happens at such a time that we run into a situation different from what we have excited, with unexpected topics coming up or meeting someone we have never dreamed of seeing.  To have the fortune of coming across a valuable object other than what we look for, we need to cultivate a mind-set that enables us to consider a waste of time affordable and a certain understanding for such an object. In the first place, we need "michimusa" to develop an eye for value. Can today's children afford to have enough "michikusa" for their growth? 長いですが、よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 和訳お願いします・・

    アメリカの銀行のchecking accountをそのままにし帰国し、その後口座内の残金を日本で使用していたのですが残金が0になったと同時にover draft item feeなるものが加算されてしまいました。これは銀行からいただいた回答なのですがどなたか和訳をお願いいたします。 We will be happy to assist you with overdraft fees assessed on your checking account ending in -1408. Please be informed that effective june 9, 2006, overdraft or insufficient funds fees are assessed against your account based on the number of overdraft fee occurrences on your account as shown below: - 1 occurrence: $19.00 per item - 2-4 occurrences: $33.00 per item - 5+ occurrences: $35.00 per item An occurrence refers to the number of days that an overdraft or insufficient funds item presented against your account during the preceding 12-month period. The rolling 12-month period includes the current calendar month plus the previous 12 calendar months. Also please know that we are not obligated to pay an item presented if your account does not have sufficient funds, we may pay it as a courtesy. This occurrence may warrant an insufficient funds or overdraft fee to be assessed to your account We can certainly assist you with your request with Overdraft Charges through Online Banking. However, once a final decision is made we are unable to appeal the decision. Please note unless it is a proven bank error and once a final decision has been reached it may result in a full, partial or no refund at all.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    But whether contemplated from a geological point of view, or whether from a philological one, that is, with reference to the value of words, the use of language, and the ordinary rules which govern writers whose object it is to make themselves understood by those to whom their works are immediately addressed, the interpretation proposed by Buckland to be given to the Mosaic description will not bear a moment's serious discussion. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the narrative, that the writer contemplated no such representation as that suggested, nor could any such idea have entered into the minds of those to whom the account was first given. Dr. Buckland endeavours to make out that we have here simply a case of leaving out facts which did not particularly concern the writer's purpose, so that he gave an account true so far as it went, though imperfect.

  • 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。

    It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only in such cases that we recognize the element of mind. In other words, ejectively con sidered, the distinctive element of mind is consciousness, the test of consciousness is the presence of choice, and the evidence of choice is the antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action between two or more alternatives. To this analysis it is, however, needful to add that, although our only criterion of mind is antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action, it does not follow that all adjustive action in which mind is con cerned should be of an antecedently uncertain character; or, which is the same thing, [it does'nt follow] that because some such action may be of an antecedently certain character, we should on this account regard it as non-mental. Many adjustive actions which we recognize as mental are, nevertheless, seen before hand to be, under the given circumstances, inevitable ; but analysis would show that such is only the case when we have in view agents whom we already, and from independent videuce, regard as mental.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Hugh Miller will be admitted by many as a competent witness to the untenability of the theory of Chalmers and Buckland on mere geological grounds. He had, indeed, a theory of his own to propose, which we shall presently consider; but we may take his word that it was not without the compulsion of what he considered irresistible evidence that he relinquished a view which would have saved him infinite time and labour, could he have adhered to it.

  • 和訳お願いいたします。

    s I'm writing this email right now ... you must still be sleeping. When I think of you ... how cute you look when you sleep ... I get such and empty feeling inside, because I want to be with you so much. That's why I just like to be with you. As you said, it doesn't really matter what we do as long as I'm with you. There is one thing I'm dreaming of ... that we don't have to do anything! That we have 1 day that we don't need to do anything. Sleep and lay in bed as long as we like, laze around, watch a movie together, ... …And I will leave for Osaka Wednesday the 5th of January early in the morning and I'm planning on coming back to Tokyo Friday the 7th in the evening. And Monday the 10th I will go back to Osaka and return to Tokyo on Friday the 14th in the evening. A

  • 和訳してください(+_+)

    So it may seem that there are no limits to the body,and that we will continue to see new records forever. Can this really be so? Isn't it likely that men and women will gradually approach some absolute limits? Most of the recent improvements in sports records have been the result of improvements in diet, coaching and training methods, and the increasing number of people participating in sports. In a few sports such as skiing and pole-vaulting, improvements in equipment have made a big difference. Again, some people fear that we may be reaching the limits. The pressure to break records has often had unfortunate results, such as the secret use of dangerous drugs (sometimes called "doping").