剩经天文学指南__参考系

傻蛋吞椰酥

[1] Heaven and Its Wonders, and Earth: The World the Biblical Writers Thought They Lived In
Dr. Robert M. Price and Reginald Finley Sr.
http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm


[2] PAUL H. SEELY The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40 THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ ... y-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

这篇是克林斯的biologos里的批判文 ，没啥内容，只有态度：

[3] Pete Enns. http://biologos.org/blog/the-fir ... thats-not-the-point




and http://biologos.org/blog/mesopot ... in-the-bible-part-5

傻蛋吞椰酥

Price这篇很详细。

傻蛋吞椰酥

Price 这篇，几乎包含了所有对剩经天文观点的分析，值得花功夫看一下。

kubuwa

In what follows, we want to summarize the work of J.Edward Wright, Edward T. Babinski, and Stephen Meyers, demonstrating the identity of the biblical and other ancient cosmologies. In a sense, it is all wasted effort, because there is virtually nothing new to add, and everything we say has long been common knowledge to anyone familiar with the study of the ancient Near East. This essay is basically a remedial course for those who have thought it best to shield themselves from common, mainstream scholarly knowledge.

我们（文章作者）即将总结一下……的工作，阐释圣经与其他古代天文观的地位问题。

某种程度上，这种精力花得纯属打水漂，因为完全不能增加什么新见解，我们说的一切内容，对熟悉古代近东研究的人来说，早就是老调重弹。

这篇文章仅仅是为那些希望自己不受广为流传的、主流学术知识“侵蚀”的人开设的补习班（差生班）。

傻蛋啊，为了汉语读者，加油啊！

傻蛋吞椰酥

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

握着库娃的手，激动地说：翻译重任交给你了

kubuwa

回复 傻蛋吞椰酥 的帖子

对近东传说不熟，就算翻译了全文还得请阁下、老乡校订一下，免得出大错。

导言草稿

苍天，奇迹与地球——圣经作者眼中的他们生活的世界

Dr. Robert M. Price 与 Reginald Finley Sr.

So-called biblical literalists find themselves in a strange double bind when it comes to the numerous Old Testament references to the common world-picture of the ancients.
有些所谓的圣经经文控，一看到旧约中数不胜数的反映古人天地观的文字，就纠结了起来。
Such readers seek with all their hearts to believe whatever the Bible may say on any subject.

这种读者致力于死心塌地地相信圣经，圣经说啥信啥。

But the challenge of believing Scripture where it speaks of unseen and unverifiable realities is one thing.

不过相信圣经难就难在，一方面圣经不但讲了看不见摸不着、验证不了的事情，

The challenge of believing it when it says things contrary to massive amounts of irrefutable evidence is another.

另一方面它的说法还和无数无可辩驳的证据相冲突，
And in the case of biblical cosmological references, it is the second challenge they seem to be facing.

在圣经的天文观点上呢，他们面临的是第二类窘境。

Put briefly, the Bible seems to any casual reader to describe the earth as a flat disk afloat upon a vast cosmic ocean.
简而言之，对一个漫不经心的圣经读者而言，圣经描述的地球就是一个浮在广袤大洋上的扁平碟子。

The sky it represents as a solid dome with windows and gates, and as resting upon great pillars thrust up from below.

天空是个固体的带门窗的拱顶，靠从下面冒出的大台柱支撑着。

The sun, moon, and stars appear to be set into the heavenly vault, to be smallish, and at no great distance from the earth.

太阳啊，月亮啊，星星啊， 好像是镶嵌在天的拱顶上面的，小小的，隔地面不远。


Very much ancient evidence both textual and archaeological, makes it clear that this is simply the common world-picture yielded by ancient natural philosophy, i.e., scientific speculation as yet unaided by observational technology such as we possess.

很多古代文本、考古证据，证实了这种世界图景只不过是一种普遍的古代自然观而已。也就是，古人在缺乏我们今天拥有的观测技术条件下的一种科学推想罢了。


Indeed, we should think the same thing were we in their place, for the world surely appears to be flat, albeit of variable altitude.
实际上，如果我们站在古人的位置上看世界，世界的确像是平的，尽管地面有高有低。

The sky appears to enclose the flat vista on all sides and to descend to meet its edges in whatever direction one looks.

不管一个人从哪个方向看，天好像是从各个角度闭合了地平线，盖下来缝合地的边界。

Rain falls from the sky and water wells up from beneath.

雨从天上落下，井水从地面涌出。

Such a view of the world is not the product of stupidity but rather of shrewd and careful observation.

与其说这种天地观傻傻的，不如说它也是古人敏锐、仔细的观察的结果。

The unaided eye and mind could not be blamed for thinking this is what the world was like.

古人的眼睛和感知没有仪器辅助，不能怪他们心目中世界就这副模样呀。

And of course it was the very same human ingenuity that worked on the challenge of observational technology until such wonders were created, and our views of cosmology were revolutionized.

当然，以同样的精巧的人心，人类克服了观测技术的挑战，创造了观测的奇迹，我们的天文观点得以革新。

你要觉得我这文笔还过得去，我可以多翻译一些。帮我挑挑错，除除虫。

有的段落意译处理，不是关键部分，不歪曲原意就好。

kubuwa

翻译探讨：

biblical literalists  维基百科作“圣经直译主义者”，日译“直解主义者”，又有“拘泥字义者”。都比较死板。

其实为迎合自身意识形态死抠字眼就是原教旨主义者的一个特性。所以为了传神暂拟一个“经文控”， 某某控，意思就是为某某所役，不可自拔。

还想了一个【直颈贫】，直译＋经文＋贫嘴，仿造“直颈瓶”而造。

还有什么传神、叫得响、入木三分的对应译名？

傻蛋吞椰酥

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

长篇翻译是个不讨好的活，慢慢来，我们想法大体一致，区别是俺不爱用新词

这篇译成后，俺们可以写短些的，看得更方便。

傻蛋吞椰酥

“经文控”， 倒是相当好的新词

kubuwa

So where does the literalist stand? He is in the impossible position of trying to make the Bible the norm and source of his beliefs, on the one hand, and yet to keep the Bible seeming believable by the standards of modern knowledge on the other.

那这些经文控怎么办呢？既要把圣经作为信仰的规范和来源，又要使圣经在现代知识的标准下看上去可信，真是难为他们了。

He cannot bring himself to deny what modern instruments have shown to be the truth of cosmology, so he cannot believe the world looks as described in scripture, but neither can he bring himself to admit that the Bible is mistaken.

他们既不能硬使自己否定现代观测仪器观察到的天文学真理，以便相信经书中描述的世界观，又不能承认圣经错了。

So, in order to defend the literal truth of the Bible (the proposition that it describes things the way they are, whether things on earth or things in heaven), he must resort to non-literal reinterpretation of the cosmic-descriptive passages of the Bible.

所以，为了维护圣经的字面真理（意即圣经描述了事物的本来面目，无论在尘世还是在天上），他们不得不诉诸“非字面的”、对圣经天文观文字的“重新阐释”。

It is an odd form of “literalism”! What a choice! To take the Bible literally in all its statements? Or to read it literally where its authors seem to have expected to be taken literally?

这种“经文控”情结多么搞笑，多么扭曲啊！瞧瞧他们做的这种选择，究竟是把圣经里面的所有描述都当字面真理来读呢，还是揣摩圣经作者们的意图，作者们想要读者“字面理解”的时候才“字面理解”？

All biblical scholars face the same dilemma, though our choice is different: we are willing to read it literally but not to oblige ourselves to believe whatever it says.

所有的圣经学者都面临这同样的窘境哦。不过我们的处理不大一样：我们是愿意把圣经做字面理解，但不强迫自己相信它所说的是真理。

That way we feel we can afford to be honest in our discernment of what the text is saying. Fundamentalists may think we are risking terrible danger that way.

通过这种阅读方式，我们觉得我们可以忠实地把握文本本意。原教旨主义者可能会觉得我们这样做危险得很。

But we would have to return the question to them: are you any better off twisting the text in the name of literalism? Because if you can do it here, on this subject, you can probably do it anywhere else you may sense you have to. Indeed, you probably already are.

不过我们把这个问题丢回给他们：难不成打着“经文控”的旗号，对文本的扭曲就少些吗？如果你可以在某个具体问题上做字面理解，你也可以在其他你觉得合适的地方做字面理解呀。其实，你可能已经这么做了哦。

又是一段照顾低IQ读者的废话。哎，脑残片一颗顶废话一大篇呀。

傻蛋吞椰酥

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

譯得好，一口氣連下面的廣告也順便看了

傻蛋吞椰酥

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

标题和最后一段还要斟酌，我们可以另开一个帖子。

乡下人进城

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

“经文控”这个译法不错。

接着翻译！R. Price 是我久闻大名却一直没法读的人物，一个很不错的研究者。这样的神学家才能称得上学术研究者。

kubuwa

回复 傻蛋吞椰酥 的帖子

不用另开。我在帖子里附上原文的目的就是在这个主题里面斟酌、修正。

标题我也是很没有把握。比如wonder一词全文只出现了两次，不好猜他究竟说的是什么。

傻蛋吞椰酥

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

已经另开了一个， ，我的想法都在里面，你拿来参考便是。

kubuwa

本来想多译一些，可惜有的翻译得花时间斟酌、完善，慢工出细活。

下面的部分是对应原文一整段：

Literalists remain in this conceptual Slough of Despond because they feel trapped in it, mired in it.

经文控之所以跳不出这种绝望的认识深渊，是因为他们已经陷进去了，不可自拔。

If they admit the Bible writers pictured the world the wrong way, despite their ostensible divine inspiration, they suspect they will not be facing Saruman (Darwin) only, as menacing as that might seem.

如果他们承认，尽管乍一看有圣灵指引，那些圣经作者还是把世界描绘错了，他们会怀疑他们面对的不仅仅是萨鲁曼（达尔文），尽管那已经够危险恐怖了。

No, soon they will be facing down the mighty Sauron (Bultmann) himself.

不，很快他们就会睥睨大能的萨鲁曼（布尔特曼）本人咯。

They know there will be no way to defend against his claim that Christianity cannot stop at shedding the ancient three-story world picture but must strip away the encumbrances of mythology, too.

面对布尔特曼关于基督教不能光祛除反映古代认识水平的“三层世界”观点，而必须整体祛除神话的累赘负担的宣告，他们自认理亏，反驳不能。

And that would be the end of supernaturalism and miracles.

而这也意味着超自然现象和神迹的终结。

And yet, it is too late for anything else. Once you are even aware of the danger, the horse has escaped the barn.

这时候说什么都晚了。人们刚刚意识到这种真相的危险性的时候，虎兕已出于柙。

To insist on a set of beliefs that would be more comforting just because you dread the result of facing the truth is fatal to the conscience.

仅仅因为害怕面对真相而去坚持一些信仰作为慰藉，这对良心是致命的。

“Faith” from that point on rests on the rotten foundation of self-deception, “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” Indeed, it is to that fatal misstep that we owe the pervasive dishonesty of apologetics: anything to defend the party line.

“信仰”，从这种角度讲，建立在腐坏的、“压制不公义的真相”的自欺上。毫无疑问，正是护教学中泛滥的虚伪导致了这种毁灭性的错误：不择手段地维护“党派路线”。

1. 萨鲁曼是魔戒人物。我没读过魔戒，只好请博学的朋友指点；

2. 布尔特曼的那个复句真麻烦，用了一点意译。如果能再润色一下就好了。

3. 马、马棚看着头疼，换成了《论语·季氏》里面的句子，又名《季氏将伐颛臾》。

4. 最后一句看着好尼采，有人润色一下就更妙了。

kubuwa

下面这段相对简单，润色一下文字就好。

In what follows, we want to summarize the work of J.Edward Wright, Edward T. Babinski, and Stephen Meyers, demonstrating the identity of the biblical and other ancient cosmologies. In a sense, it is all wasted effort, because there is virtually nothing new to add, and everything we say has long been common knowledge to anyone familiar with the study of the ancient Near East. This essay is basically a remedial course for those who have thought it best to shield themselves from common, mainstream scholarly knowledge. And yet it is always best for the student not to take for granted what “most scholars say.” It is better to know why they say so. It is best to base one’s opinions on a consideration of the evidence, and this essay is a brief survey of sufficient of it.      

在接下来的文字里，我们将对 J.Edward Wright, Edward T. Babinski 和 Stephen Meyers 的研究成果予以总结、概述，阐释圣经与其他古代天文观的同一性问题。某种程度上，这纯属浪费精力，因为完全不能增加什么新见解，我们说的一切内容，对熟悉古代近东研究的人来说，早就是老调重弹。这篇文章仅仅是为那些希望自己不受广为流传的、主流学术知识“侵蚀”的人开设的补习班。不过对这些学生而言，最好不要光是盲信“大多数学者认为”这样的话，而要理解为什么他们这么说。一个人的观点最好是建立在对一系列事实、证据的深思熟虑上，而本文就是一个旨在提供足够事实证据的概要。

identity （貌似前面理解错了）我理解为同一性、同质，也就是圣经天文观和其他近东天文观有共同来源，同样的本质。不知道有什么更好的翻译可以提供。

乡下人进城

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

If they admit the Bible writers pictured the world the wrong way, despite their ostensible divine inspiration, they suspect they will not be facing Saruman (Darwin) only, as menacing as that might seem.

如果他们承认，尽管乍一看有圣灵指引，那些圣经作者还是把世界描绘错了，他们会怀疑他们面对的不仅仅是萨鲁曼（达尔文），尽管那已经够危险恐怖了。

这一段稍微改动一下，你看看怎么样：

如果他们承认，那些圣经作者尽管貌似有圣灵指引，却还是把世界描绘错了，那么他们就会担心，自己面对的不仅仅是萨鲁曼（达尔文），尽管后者本身就已经足够危险恐怖了。


布尔特曼那一段

They know there will be no way to defend against his claim that Christianity cannot stop at shedding the ancient three-story world picture but must strip away the encumbrances of mythology, too.

面对布尔特曼关于基督教不能光祛除反映古代认识水平的“三层世界”观点，而必须整体祛除神话的累赘负担的宣告，他们自认理亏，反驳不能。

可以考虑把句子分开，比如这样：

布尔特曼宣称，基督教不能仅仅祛除反映古代认识水平的“三层世界”观，而且必须整体祛除神话的累赘负担。面对这种宣称，他们也知道自己理亏，无法反驳。

kubuwa

暂时没空继续翻译，傻蛋更新主帖了，汗……

瞟了一眼3号链接，总结“态度”如下：

It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand.

上帝总是以当时当地人们能理解的方式传达旨意的，记住这一点很重要。

再翻译一下：上帝为了照顾古代人的认识水平，让他们认识的地球就是天圆地方的。

点评：真是神经病！上帝若是如此”巧夺天工“、为广大群众智商量身定做，还要你神学家深挖”微言大义“干什么？明明智商比不过上帝还硬要偷窥人家智慧的内裤，就是窥阴癖。

傻蛋吞椰酥

回复 kubuwa 的帖子

不许偷懒。。。。