• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!


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:


  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数82
  • 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% (8014/9889)

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。





  • 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.

  • 和訳お願いします

    Indeed, it has been argued that sport remains one of the last bastions of masculinity. 本当に、スポーツが男らしさの最後の要塞のうちの1つのままであると主張されました。 機械翻訳しましたが、ちゃんとした和訳にするとどうなりますか? (特に、Indeed, it has been argued thatの部分)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 和訳お願いします。

    和訳お願いします。 In modern timees , with the motorcar and the airplane, the desert may be said to have been conquered so far as travel is concerned . But it has been conquered in other ways. The send of the desert , blown by the winds , advances yard by yard over the cultivated fields. Many lands that once were cultivated have been changed into deserts . Sand covers the wells and canals that once watered fields . This has largely been caused by the scarcity of rainfall 長文すいません。 お願いします

  • 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.

  • 和訳お願いします

    ・so for all intents it appears that the city has been deserted. ・most families understand what it means to say that a patient has less than I chance in 20 of returning to an independent life.

  • 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.