A Third Opinion on the Days of Mosaic Creation
- A third opinion suggests that the days of the Mosaic creation may not imply the same length of time as a single revolution of the globe.
- The order of succession of organic remains in the geological record does not entirely support this view.
- However, there is no critical or theological objection to interpreting the word 'day' as meaning a long period.
- ベストアンサー
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:
- mangifera
- お礼率62% (136/218)
- 英語
- 回答数1
- ありがとう数1
- みんなの回答 （1）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
以下のとおりお答えします。（この文章も最後が完結しないのかもしれませんが、これもまた、そのまま訳しておきます。） 3番目の見解は、博学の神学者および地質学者の両者によって、しかも互いに無関係の土俵上で示唆されました。ー すなわち、モーゼの創造の日々は現在地球の一回転で占められている時間と同じ長さを意味すると了解される必要はなく、それぞれが大きな広がりを持つ継続的期間であり、また、先行世界の有機的遺物の継続順位が創世記に記録された創造の順序と一致することが主張されました。 この主張は、外見上ある程度は正確ですが、全然、地質学の事実によって支援されるとは限りません。野菜の中で最も初期の遺物を含んだ最下段推移層と同じ区割りに、最古代の海洋動物が発生しているように見えるので、その結果有機的遺物の証拠は、そこに限っては、動植物の起源が同時であったことを示しています。もし、何らかの野菜の創造が動物のそれに先行したとするなら、そのような出来事の証拠は地質学の研究によってはまだ発見されていません。それでもまだ、長い期間を意味する単語「日」の解釈に対する、欠陥のない批判的神学的な反対（論）のあることを私は信じます。 副司教プラットもまた即座に、この見解を支持できないものとして拒絶しています： 以上、ご回答まで。
関連するQ&A
- 和訳お願い致します。
I take it for granted, then, 'that all my readers accept the doctrine of Organic Evolution, or the belief that all species of plants and animals have bad a derivative mode of origin by way of natural descent ; and, moreover, that one great law ormethod of the process has been natural selection, or survival of the fittest. If anyone grants this much, I further assume that he must concede to me the fact, as distinguished from the manner and history of Mental Evolution, throughout the whole range of the animal kingdom, with the exception of man. I assume this because I hold that if the doctrine of Organic Evolution is accepted, it carries with it, as a necessary corollary, the doctrine of Mental Evolution, at all events as far as the brute creation is concerned. For throughout the brute creation, from wholly unintelligent animals to the most highly intelligent, we can trace one continuous gradation ; so that if we already believe that all specific forms of animal life have had a derivative origin, we cannot refuse to believe that all the mental faculties which these various forms present must likewise have had a derivative origin. And, as a matter of fact, we do not find anyone so unreasonable as to maintain, or even to suggest, that if the evidence of Organic Evolution is accepted, the evidence of Mental Evolution, within the limits which I have named, can consistently be rejected. - The one body of evidence therefore serves as a pedestal to the other, such that in the absence of the former the latter would have no locus standi (for no one could well dream, of Mental Evolution were it not for the evidence of Organic Evolution, or of the transmutation of species) ; while the presence of the former irresistibly suggests the necessity of the latter, as the logical structure for the support of which the pedestal is what it is.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The hypothesis adopted by Dr Buckland was first promulgated at a time when the gradual and regular formation of the earth's strata wasn't seen or admitted so clearly as it is now. Geologists were more disposed to believe in great catastrophes and sudden breaks. Buckland's theory supposes that, previous to the appearance of the present races of animals and vegetables,there was a great gap in the globe's history—that the earth was completely depopulated as well of marine as land animals; and that the creation of all existing plants and animals was coeval with that of man. This theory is by no means supported by geological phenomena, and is we suppose, now rejected by all geologists whose authority is valuable . Thus writes Hugh Miller in 1857, 'I certainly did once believe with Chalmers and with Buckland that the six days were simply natural days of twenty-four hours each, that they had comprised the entire work of existing creation, and that the latest of the ages was separated by a great chaotic gap from our own. My labours at the time as a practical geologist had been very much restricted to the palaeozoic and secoundary rocks, more especially to the old red and Carboniferous systems of the one division and the oolitic system of the other ;and the long-extinct organisms which I found in them certainly didn't conflict with the view of Chalmers. All I found necessary at the time to the work of reconciliation was some scheme that would permit me to assign to the earth a high antiquity and to regard it SSS scene of many succeeding creation. During the last nine years, however, I have spent a few weeks every autumn in exploring the late formations, and acquainting myself with their particular organisms.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The question of the meaning of the word bara,'create,'has been previously touched upon;it has been acknowledged by good critics that it doesn't of itself necessarily imply 'to make out of nothing upon the simple ground that it is found [to be]uesd in cases where such a meaning would be inapplicable . But the difficultly of giving to it the interpretation contended for by Dr Buckland and of uniting with this the assumption of a six days' creation, such as that described in Genesis, at a comparatively recent period, lies in this,that the heaven itself is distinctly said to have been formed by the division of the waters on the second day. Consequently , until. The first Mosaic day of creation, there was no sky, no local habitation for the sun,moon and stars, even supposing those bodies to have been included in the original material. Dr Buckland doesn't touch this obvious difficulty, without which his argument that the sun and moon might have been contemplated as pre-existing , although they aren't stated to have been set in the heaven until the forth day, is of no value at all.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳をお願い致します。
These have already been actioned. If you refer to the attachments that you sent me it states that on the 03/12/2014 there was a reversal of $9.88 the original mailing statement has been charged for the amount of $6.18 As for the second discrepancy for the $3.80, this has also been reversed and re charged on the 07/01/2015 for the amount of $1.95 Everything has been reversed and charged accordingly *Amended request for Invoice No.xxxxxxxx
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 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.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 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.'
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 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.'
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
There is one other class of interpreters, however, with whom I find it impossible to agree, -- I mean those who take the six days to be six periods of unknown indefinite length. This is the principle of interpretation in a work on the Creation and the Fall, by the Rev. D. Macdonald; also in Mr. Hugh Miller's posthumous work, the Testimony of the Rocks, and also in an admirable treatise on the Præ-Adamite Earth in Dr. Lardner's Museum of Science. In this last it is the more surprising because the successive chapters are in fact an accumulation of evidence which points the other way, as a writer in the Christian Observer, Jan.1858, has conclusively shown. The late M. D'Orbigny has demonstrated in his Prodrome de Palæontologie, after an elaborate examination of vast multitudes of fossils, that there have been at least twenty-nine distinct periods of animal and vegetable existence -- that is, twenty nine creations separated one from another by catastrophes which have swept away the species existing at the time, with a very few solitary exceptions, never exceeding one and a-half per cent, of the whole number discovered which have either survived the catastrophe, or have been erroneously designated. But not a single species of the preceding period survived the last of these catastrophes, and this closed the Tertiary period and ushered in the Human period. The evidence adduced by M. D'Orbigny shows that both plants and animals appeared in every one of those twenty-nine periods. The notion, therefore, that the days' of Genesis represent periods of creation from the beginning of things is at once refuted. The parallel is destroyed both in the number of the periods (thirty, including the Azoic, instead of six), and also in the character of the things created. No argument could be more complete; and yet the writer of the Præ-Admite Earth, in the last two pages, sums up his lucid sketch of M. D'Orbigny's researches by referring the account in the first chapter of Genesis to the whole creation from the beginning of all things, a selection of epochs being made, as he imagines, for the six days or periods.' In this trenchant manner do theological geologists overthrow one another's theories.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The other point which has to be noted with regard to this criterion is as follows. I again quote from " Animal Intelligence :"— " Of course to the sceptic this criterion may appear un satisfactory, since it depends, not on direct knowledge, but on inference. Here, however, it seems enough to point out, as already observed, that it is the best criterion available ; and, further, that scepticism of this kind is logically bound to deny evidence of mind, not only in the case of the lower animals, but also in that of the higher, and even in that of men other than the sceptic himself. For all objections which could apply to the use of this criterion of mind in the animal kingdom, would apply with equal force to the evidence of any mind other than that of the individual objector. This is obvious, because, as I have already observed, the only evi dence we can have of objective mind is that which is furnished by objective activities ; and, as the subjective mind can never become assimilated with the objective so as to learn by direct feeling the mental processes which there accompany the objective activities, it is clearly impossible to satisfy any one who may choose to doubt the validity of inference, that in any case, other than his own, mental processes ever do accompany objective activities.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
It would have been well if theologians had made up their minds to accept frankly the principle that those things for the eiscovery of which man has faculties specially provided are not fit objects of a divine revelation. Had this been unhesitangly done, either the definition and idea of divine revelation must have been modified and the possibly of an admixture of error[must] have been allowed,or such parts of the Hebrew writings as were found to be repugnant to fact must have been pronounced to form no part of revelation. The first course is that which theologians have most generally adopted,but [it is adopted] with such limitation,cautels those who would know how and what God really has taught mankind, and whether anything beyond that which man is able,and obviously intended,to arrive at by the use of his natural faculties.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
ありがとうございます。