• ベストアンサー
※ ChatGPTを利用し、要約された質問です(原文:和訳お願い致します。)

Early Speculator: Unity of the Design of the World and its Subordination to One Sole Maker and Lawgiver

  • The early speculator recognized the unity of the design of the world and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver.
  • Although he lacked knowledge about the earth's surface, its shape, and its place in the universe, he understood that everything within his observation was formed for the benefit and service of man.
  • While the simple view of creation may be physically untenable, it has served as a basis of theological teaching and continues to hold cultural significance.


  • ベストアンサー
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率80% (9784/12191)

以下のとおりお答えします。(特に最後の段落がむずかしいと思いました。2,3日考えましたが、よくは分かりませんでした。すみませんが、誤訳があるかもしれません。) 初期の理論家はそのような呵責によって悩まされることなく、見込みのあるものとして実際に知っていることのみを主張しました。しかし、私たちは彼の完全な信義を疑ってその説明には寄り添いません。また、故意の虚偽や真実でないと彼が知っていることを主張しようとする意識を彼に帰する必要はありません。彼は、現代的質問での最も高い発言をしっかり先取りしたような1つの大きな真実を捉えていました。…すなわち世界設計の単一性、および単独の造物主・立法者へのそれの服従です。 詳細に関しては、観察によって彼は失望しました。彼は地球表面あるいは宇宙における地球の形や場所についてはほとんど知りませんでした。植民しようとする場所にいる系統立てられた生命存在の無限の種類、異なる大陸の別個の植物相や動物相も彼には知られていませんでした。しかし、自分の観察内に横たわるものすべてが、人間の利益と利用にとっては具合の悪い形をしていましたが、創造物に対する造物主の善意が、その御心にある優勢な考えであることを彼は知っていました。 人類の造物主との近接した関係は、一切の被造物が決定されたあと、最後に人が造られたという表現、および神の似姿に見えることよって示されます。時代については、人類に必要なものを満たす創造についての純な見方が、十分な神学的教えの基礎を形成しました。そしてもし、現代の研究が今それを物理的に主張し難いこととして示しているとしても、私たちの人種の文化に極めて重要な役割を果たしてきたその話に対する私たちの尊敬の念を縮小する必要などはまったくありません。 天文学や地質学の教えることの基礎としてそれが利用できるなどとは誰も主張しません。また、その中に事実との一致を見る、と公言する人々は単に副次的・二義的にそうしているだけであり、その一貫性と壮大さをそれから奪取する過程でそうしているだけです。両方とも、私たちがその中に、神の知識の真正な発言ではなく人間の発言を認識するとすれば、それが保持されることになるかもしれません。すなわち、人類教育用の特別方法として神意を利用することは神意を喜ばせた、ということです。 不十分ながら、以上ご回答まで。






  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The foregoing explanation many have now adopted. It is sufficient for my purpose, if it be a possible explanation, and if it meet the difficulties of the case. That it is possible in itself, is plain from the fact above established, that the Scriptures wisely speak on natural things according to their appearances rather than their physical realities. It meets the difficulties of the case, because all the difficulties hitherto started against this chapter on scientific grounds proceeded on the principle that it is a cosmogony; which this explanation repudiates, and thus disposes of the difficulties. It is therefore an explanation satisfactory to my own mind. I may be tempted to regret that I eau gain no certain scientific information from Genesis regarding the process of the original creation; but I resist the temptation, remembering the great object for which the Scripture was given -- to tell man of his origin and fall, and to draw his mind to his Creator and Redeemer. Scripture was not designed to teach us natural philosophy, and it is vain to attempt to make a cosmogony out of its statements. The Almighty declares himself the originator of all things, but he condescends not to describe the process or the laws by which he worked. All this he leaves for reason to decipher from the phenomena which his world displays. This exploration, however, I do not wish to impose on Scripture; and am fully prepared to surrender it, should further scientific discovery suggest another better fitted to meet all the requirements of the case.'

  • 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 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 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 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。

    After all,' says Buckland, it should be recollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it,' proposition which can hardly be sufficiently reprobated. Such a doctrine, carried out unreservedly, strikes at the root of critical morality. It may, indeed, be sometimes possible to give two or three different interpretations to one and the same passage, even in a modern and familiar tongue, in which case this may arise from the unskilfulness of the writer or speaker who has failed clearly to express his thought. In a dead or foreign language the difficulty may arise from our own want of familiarity with its forms of speech, or in an ancient book we may be puzzled by allusions and modes of thought the key to which has been lost. But it is no part of the commentator's or interpreter's business to introduce obscurity or find difficulties where none exist, and it cannot be pretended that, taking it as a question of the use of words to express thoughts, there are any peculiar difficulties about understanding the first chapter of Genesis, whether in its original Hebrew or in our common translation, which represents the original with all necessary exactness. The difficulties arise for the first time, when we seek to import a meaning into the language which it certainly never could have conveyed to those to whom it was originally addressed. Unless we go the whole length of supposing the simple account of the Hebrew cosmogonist to be a series of awkward equivocations, in which he attempted to give a representation widely different from the facts, yet, without trespassing against literal truth, we can find no difficulty in interpreting his words. Although language may be, and often has been, used for the purpose, not of expressing, but concealing thought, no such charge can fairly be laid against the Hebrew writer.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    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.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    We venture to think that the world at large will continue to consider the account in the first chapter of Genesis to be a cosmogony. But as it is here admitted that it does not describe physical realities, but only outward appearances, that is, gives a description false in fact, and one which can teach us no scientific truth whatever, it seems to matter little what we call it. If its description of the events of the six days which it comprises be merely one of appearances and not of realities, it can teach us nothing regarding them. Dissatisfied with the scheme of conciliation which has been discussed, other geologists have proposed to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical sense to the Mosaic narrative, and to consider the creative days described as vast periods of time. This plan was long ago suggested, but it has of late enjoyed a high degree of popularity, through the advocacy of the Scotch geologist Hugh Miller, an extract from whose work has been already quoted. Dr. Buckland gives the following account of the first form in which this theory was propounded, and of the grounds upon which he rejected it in favour of that of Chalmers:

  • 英文の和訳

    英文の和訳をしていただけるかた のみで、お願いできますでしょうか? 抽象的かもしれませんが どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。 On the day you meet he will impress you, and in the days and hours afterwards he will haunt you. That is the only word for it. He will make an impact on the depth of your being that barely registers, except that in the time that follows you will not be able to think of any man but him.. He will seem striking, alluring in some way that you cannot fathom, and which has nothing to do with his looks, as though a chord is struck in your deeper soul, or the innermost chambers of your being. You will recognize him, not only from the description, which is in a sense quite bland, but something inside of you will be mesmerized. All day and days afterwards he will have stamped his indelible impression on your mind and you’ll keep thinking back to him, to the meeting, to the man, to the warm kindling feeling inside of you. Like a curtain of a dream it will drop across you life. It will be that mystical, that beautiful, yet real and solid too.

  • 【DCP-J582N】で大量の印刷中に紙詰まりが発生し、紙を取り除いてもエラーが解除されません。紙詰まりのセンサーの位置を教えてください。
  • DCP-J582Nの紙詰まりエラーに対応して紙を取り除きましたが、エラーは解消されません。紙詰まりのセンサーの場所を教えてください。
  • DCP-J582Nで印刷中に紙詰まりが発生し、紙を取り除いてもエラーが解除されません。紙詰まりのセンサーの位置を教えてください。