• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

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.

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数80
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8019/9894)

以下のとおりお答えします。 私たちは、ヘブライ人の記録に含まれる創造の説明に移ります。そして実際には、創世記の書物の中で2つの異なる説明がなされる状況が見られるに違いありません。その1つは第1章と第2章冒頭の第3節に、他方は第2章の第4節に始まりずっと続いて最終節までの間に含まれます。これは文献学上極めて確実なことなので、それを無視するのは無益なことでしょう。2人の異なる作家の著作がここにあるという事実に逆らいたがる人々でさえ、次のことは認めるでしょう。すなわち、第1章の第1節で始まり、第2章の第3節で終る説明は、それ自体で完結している、ということです。そして、この話の主題を不必要に複雑化しないよう、私たちは自分自身を抑制するつもりです。それは、この説明が私たちの天文学や地質学の知識と一致し得るか否かを探求するための目的にとって十分でしょう。また、それについての正しい理解については、全体がはっきりされるに違いありません。その結果、さまざまな部分が互いに結合した形で得られることになるでしょう。

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した!

関連するQ&A

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    'The second verse may describe the condition of the earth on the evening of this first day(for in the Jewish mode of computation used by Moses each day is reckoned from the beginning of one evening to the beginning of another evening). This first evening may be considered as the termination of the indefinite time which followed the primeval creation announced in the first verse, and[may be considered]as the commencement of the first of the six succeeding days in which the earth was to be filled up and peopled in a manner fit the reception of mankind. .We have in this second verse a distinct mention of earth and waters as already existing and involved in darkness ;their condition also is described as a state of confusion and emptiness (tofu bofu), words which are usually interpreted by the vague and indefinite Greek term 'chaos',and which may world. At this intermediate point of time the preceding undefined geological periods had terminated, a new series of events commenced, and the work of the first morning of this new creation was the calling forth of light from a temporary darkness which had overspread the ruins of the ancient earth'.

  • 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:

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    In truth,however,if we refer to the plans of conciliation proposed,we find them at variance with each other and mutually destructive.The conciliators are not agreed among themselves,and each holds the views of the other to be untenable and unsafe, The ground is perpetually being shifted as the advance of geological science may require.The plain meaning of the Hebrew record is unscrupulously tampered with,in general the pith of the whole process lies in divesting the text of all meaning whatever.We are told that,Scripture not being designed to teach us natural philosophy,it is in vain to attempt to make out a cosmogony from its statements. If the first chapter of Genesis conveys to us no information concerning the origin of the world, it's statements can't indeed be contradicted by modern discovery.But it is absurd to call this harmony. Statements such as that above quoted are,we conceive, little calculated to be serviceable to the interests of theology ,still less to religion and morality .

  • 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.

  • 英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします。

    ' Accrding to thsi explanation , the first chapter og Genesis does not pretend (as has been generally assumed) to be a cosmogony or an account of the original creation of the material universe. The only cosmogony which it contains,in that sense at least, is confined to be sublime decraration of the first verse, "In the begnning God created the heavens and the earth." The inspired record ,thus stepping over an interval of indefinite ages with which man has no direct concern, proceeds at once to narrate the events preparatory to the introduction of man on the scean; employing phraseology strictly faithful to the appearances(斜字) which would have met the eye of man, could he have been a spectator on the earth of whta passed during those six days. Allthis has been commonly supposed to be more detailed account of the general truth announced in the five verse, in short, a cosmogony: such was the idea of Josephus[37-100]; such probably was the idea of our translators;for their version "without form and void," points to the primeval chaos, out of which all things were then supposed to emerge; and these words, standing in limine, have tended, perhaps more than anything else, to foster the idea of a cosmogony in the minds of general readers to this very day.'

  • 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.'

  • 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。

    While writing the first chapters of the present volume, I intended that the latter half of it should be devoted to a con sideration of this question, and therefore in " Animal Intelli gence " I said that such would be the case. But as the work proceeded it soon became evident that a full treat ment of this question would require more space than could be allowed in a single volume, without seriously curtailing both the consideration of this question itself and also that of mental evolution, as this is exhibited in the animal kingdom. I therefore determined on restricting the present essay to a consideration of mental evolution in animal, and on reserv ing for subsequent publication all the material which I have collected beaiing on mental evolution in man. I cannot yet say how long it will be before I can feel that I am justified in publishing my researches concerning this branch of my subject ; for the more that I have investigated it, the more have I found that it grows, as it were, in three dimensions— in depth, width, and complexity. But at whatever time I shall be able to publish the third and final instalment of my work, it will of course rest upon the basis supplied by the present essay, as this rests upon the basis supplied by the previous one.

  • 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.