Genesis 1:1–2:3 (1) [譯文] 下
(續前)
Beyond this, there is the overall structure of the passage built upon the opening two adjectives, which describe the initially created-but-not-yet-refined earth as both “formless” and “void.” Following that de????ion of the setting, the rest of the account is showing how, over the first three days, the problem of the earth's formlessness is solved as God shapes the creation, and how, over the next three days (and perhaps beginning on the third day, if you count the plants), the earth’s emptiness is replaced by the various created things that God places in the newly shaped regions.

除此之外，整段的總體結構是建立在開頭的兩個形容詞上，敘述着剛開始被造、仍待琢磨的地，是“空虛”（譯按，formless，沒有形狀）與“混沌”（譯按，void，空無所有）的。從這個場景的敘述，其餘的記載顯示，頭三天中，地空虛的問題被解決了，上帝塑造了地﹔以及，在接下來的三天中（如果算植物，第三天大概也包括在內），混沌（空空如也）的地被各種被造物所填滿，是上帝把它們安放在已經造好的區域裡面。

Another way of seeing this same thing is to look at the relationship between the days and the obvious structuring taking place there. For example, the first day corresponds to the fourth day, the second day corresponds to fifth day, and the third day corresponds to sixth day. On day one you have the creation of the entities of light and darkness, and then on day four the creation of heavenly bodies like the sun and moon that relate directly to that. On day two you have the creation of the sky and seas, and on day five the population of the skies and seas with fish and birds. On day three you have the creation of dry land, and on day six you see the creation of the animals and the people that will inhabit the dry land.
另外一個看同一件事的方法是這些日子彼此的關係，和明顯發生的結構。例如，第一天相對於第四天，第二天相對於第五天，第三天相對於第六天。第一天你看到光和暗的造成，然後在第四天有天體（如直接與此相關的日、月）的形成。第二天，你看到天和海的創造，而在第五天，有天空的飛鳥和海中的魚的創造。第三天有旱地的創造，而在第六天你看到居住在這旱地上的動物和人的創造。

The seventh day is a day of rest from all this creative activity. But it too adds to the overall structured nature of the account. It also makes it clear that, among other things, Israel’s Sabbatarian practices were grounded on the very order of creation itself. We’ll look more closely at that later.
第七天是從所有的創造活動中休息的一天，但是它也補充了這個紀錄中整體結構的本質。除此之外，它也清楚表明，以色列安息日的慣例，是奠基於創造秩序的本身。我們等一下會更詳細地來看。

But the thing to see at this point is simply the highly structured nature of the form and content of this prologue, including the high degree of repetition of key words and phrases throughout. This is history, but it’s not typical history. It’s not a “Just the facts, ma’am” kind of history.
到此為止，我們該看到的只是這個開場白的形式與內容，和高度有結構的本質，包括一些重要字、詞高度的重複。這是歷史，但不是典型的歷史。它不是“只要事實，女士”（Just the facts, ma’am）一類的歷史。

So, again, when you look at the prologue as a whole and ask, “What is it that we have here, and how does it relate to that which follows?” what you see is that it is an account that accomplishes a number of purposes all at once:
因此，再一次，當你把開場白當成一個整體，然後問：“我們有些什麼？它與後面有什麼關係？”你看到的是同時達成一些目的一個紀錄。

1. It shows the power and superiority of Israel’s Creator God over all other alleged pagan gods.
2. It shows a great deal of literary structuring, including a strong element of linguistic features based upon the number seven. In so doing, it sends the strong message of the perfection of God’s creative work, and makes the section more memorable.
3. It shows a lot of structure just in terms of its ideas and content, and arranges these in a way that facilitates the remembering and retention of the things written here.
1. 它顯示以色列的創造者的權能和優越性，超乎其他異教所謂的神祗。
2. 它顯示出很多的文學結構，包括根據數字七，一個很強的語言特徵的元素。因為如此，它傳道出一個很強的信息，有關上帝創造工作的完美，也使整個段落容易記住。
3. 它在概念和內容上顯出許多的結構，並且經過妥善安排，幫助所寫下來的東西容易記憶和保存。

And all of this leads me to conclude that one of the main features of this account, and one of the reasons it has been so highly structured, is to make it a fairly memorable and "transferable" or “portable” story. Having a format which made the creation story — and the message of the creation story — more memorable and portable was important precisely because of the crucial, foundational significance of this account. It would be a highly useful thing for the people of Israel, especially at this point in their history.
所有這些使我結論到這個記載的一個主要特徵，也是它之所以有如此高度結構的原因，是使它變成一個相當容易背誦和“傳送”，或“攜帶”的故事。創造故事和創造故事的信息有一個形式，使它容易背誦和攜帶是很重要的，正是因為這個紀錄至關重要、有根基性的重要性。它對以色列民非常有用，特別在他們歷史中的這個關頭。
I remember a rhyme my mother taught me years ago, which I cannot recall all of, but enough of it has always stayed with me to fulfill its purpose. It goes something like this:
我記得一個韻文，是我母親很早以前教我的，我沒有完全記得，但足夠使它成為我的一部分，達成它的功能。它大概是這樣說的：

"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have 31 except … February, and it’s a silly month anyway…"
九月有三十天，四月、六月、十一月；其餘的有三十一天，除了二月，反正它是個糊塗的月份。

Now, the purpose of that little rhyme was to help me to remember the number of days in the different months. And in order for the device to work, in order to make it rhyme and thus more easily memorized, it actually presents the months out of sequence. To put it another way, it dischronologizes them — not to mislead me, but to serve its intended purpose, to function as a memorable device for recalling the number of days in the months. But if I had taken my mother's rhyme and tried to use it as the basis for ordering the months on a calendar, then I would have been misusing my mother's rhyme. I would have been reading it wrongly, and using it for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.
如今，這個小韻文幫助我記得不同月份各有幾天。為了使它有作用，為了使它押韻而容易被記憶，它的確沒有讓月份按次序排列。換句話說，它弄亂了它們的次序──不是為了誤導我，而是為了達成它的目的，就是作為記憶的工具，以記住月份的天數。但是如果我用我母親的韻文，作為月曆中排列月份的根據，那麼我可能錯用了我母親的韻文。我可能誤讀了它，把它用在它本來沒有想要達成的目的上。

In a similar fashion, if the purpose of the Genesis prologue was to communicate the perfection and fullness of God's creation, the superiority and uniqueness of God over against other false gods, and the wisdom and orderliness and breadth of his creation — and not to provide a scientific or chronological portrait — then we misuse and misread the prologue when we force it into that mold.
類似的情形，如果創世記開場白的目的是傳達上帝創造的完美和豐富，上帝的無上性和獨特性，是超乎其他的假神之上，以及他創造的智慧和秩序，以及廣度──而不是提供一個科學或按年代序的描寫──那麼，當我們要強迫它適應這個模式，我們就誤用和誤解了這個開場白。

Even further, when we do these sorts of things, we create a perspective that does not easily mesh with Genesis 2:5-17. In that section, you have an account that explains how and why things did or did not happen when they did according to providence. And, along with that, you have a different sequence of events in several places. Now, admittedly, there are ways to interpret these texts that harmonize the two sequences. There is a scholar named John Currid who handles this fairly well. But even allowing for the possibility of these interpretations (which are not convincing in my estimation), these interpretations do not deal with the providential explanation that underlies the account, and that Meredith Kline has discussed so well.
更有甚者，當我們這樣作的時候，我們創造了一個不容易與創世記2：5-17契合的觀點。在那個段落中，我們有一個記載是解釋事情的確按照上帝的護理（providence），為何和如何發生或沒有發生。同時，在許多地方，事件也有不同的順序。那麼，無可厚非的，為了使這兩個次序能吻合，對這些經文就有很多不同的解釋。有一個名為克里（John Currid）的學者把這個問題處理得相當好。但是即使承認這些解釋的可能性（就我的判斷並沒有說服力），這些解釋並沒有處理落在這些紀錄背後的上帝護理的解釋。在這點上克萊恩（Meredith Kline）討論得很好。

Let me illustrate what I am getting at. Genesis 2:5-7 re-describes the creation of man, and provides more detail than we saw in chapter 1. In setting the scene for this creation of man, the passage says that this happened at a time when “no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up.” Now, on the surface, this seems to contradict what happened on day three in the prologue where God caused the earth to sprout plants and fruit trees to cover the earth with vegetation.
讓我說明我所領受的。創世記2：5-7重述了人的創造，提供我們在第一章看到的更多細節。在為創造人布置其場景中，這段經文提到這件事是發生在“當野地還沒有草木，田間的菜蔬還沒有長起來”的時候。那麼，從表面上來看，這似乎與開場白中第三天發生的事相牴觸，在那裡，上帝使地長出植物和水果樹，使地上覆蓋着菜蔬。

In an attempt to reconcile these two passages, some scholars suggest that the plants that were created in Genesis 1 were wild plants and trees that reproduce on their own. They argue that Genesis 1 describes plants and trees that spread their own seed without any outside help. By contrast, the plants described in chapter 2 do not spring up by themselves. Rather, they are crops, like corn and wheat, plants that require special care and outside help, and which do not as easily or naturally reproduce themselves.
為了嘗試調和這兩個段落，有些學者主張在第一章中造的是野生的植物和樹木，它們會自行繁殖。他們認為創世記第一章描述的植物和樹木，會自行散播他們自己的種子，不必靠任何外來的幫助。相對的，第二章所描述的植物，不是靠它們自行生長，而是它們需要收割，有如玉米和麥子，是需要特別照料和外在幫助的植物，不容易自行繁殖。

Now, that is, admittedly, a clever explanation, but it ignores one essential fact: the explanation that chapter 2 provides for these plants not yet appearing in the field at the time before the man was created. That explanation is found in Genesis 2:5: “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain.”
無可否認的，是一個很聰明的解釋，它忽略了一個很基本的事實：人被創造前，第二章為這些植物所作的解釋，還沒有出現在田野。這個解釋在2：5：“因為耶和華神還沒有降雨在地上。”

If Genesis 1 is only talking about certain kinds of plants, and Genesis 2 is talking about entirely different kinds of plants, then the reason given in Genesis 2:5 doesn’t make sense. Because if the reason there were no crops is because there was no rain, then that fact would also have prevented their being any other plants. Do you see what I’m saying? The distinction between the kinds of plants being created may solve one problem, but it ignores another and more significant one: the providential foundation that lies behind Genesis 2.
如果創世記第一章說的只是某些植物，第二章說的是完全不同種的植物，那麼在2：5所說的理由就不合理了。因為如果沒有菜蔬的原因是因為沒有雨，那麼這個事實也會使其他植物無法生長。你了解我說的嗎？做出不同種類植物的區分也許可以解決一個問題，但是它忽略了其他更重要的問題：第二章背後的上帝的看護的基礎。

And so, at the end of the day, you have something of a conundrum, trying to reconcile and harmonize two passages that, on the surface at least, do not easily go together. However, this reality highlights perhaps the most significant fact about these passages, which can, in spite of its significance, be easily missed: These two passages appear side-by-side, back-to-back.
如此，在忙了一天過後，你有了一個機智問答，至少在表面上試着要調和兩個不容易並行的段落。然而，這個現實也許標誌着這些段落最重要的事實，雖然很重要，但是卻很容易被忽略：就是這兩段經文是並排出現的，一段接着另外一段。

Now, this may seem fairly unimportant, but as I’ve already suggested, it may be the most important fact of all. In other words, we have here two accounts of the creation, from different perspectives and with differing emphases. And yet the author, who certainly understood these stories better than we do, placed them together. He apparently saw no contradictions between them, no reason to edit one account or the other, and no reason to smooth over the two into a more blended whole. He kept them as they are, and this fact speaks volumes. It forces us to wrestle with these texts until we see through the author’s eyes, understanding how these two accounts work together.
這看起來似乎不太重要，但正如我所說的，這可能是最重要的事實。在這裡我們有兩個創世記的紀錄，是從不同的角度，各有不同的強調。然而比我們更了解這些故事的作者，卻把它們放在一起。他顯然沒有看到它們之間的矛盾，也看不到理由要對它們加以編輯，也沒有理由把這兩段加以混合，製造出更協調的整體。他保留它們的原貌，這個事實很有份量。它迫使我們和這些經文過招，直到我們透過作者的眼來看這些經文，了解這兩個記載如何分工合作。

At present there are two main options within the Reformed camp, and this is what we have been discussing here. The one view sees both accounts as being the same with regard to their literality and purpose, with both intending to show the proper ordering and sequence of the creation. It assumes that we are meant to look for all kinds of historical and scientific detail in our reading.
到目前為止，改革宗陣營有兩大選擇，這是我們正在討論的。一個觀點認為兩個記載就他們的文學性和目的來看，是同一個記載，都是為了顯示創造的適當秩序和順序。它假設我們在閱讀時應當尋找各種歷史和科學的細節。
The other main view is that the two passages are not the same. Yes, they are talking about the same things. They are both factual; they both convey true history. But the primary concern is not found in the details of sequencing and order. Instead it is found in the overall message and structure. The author did not intend to teach his original audience about the sequence of creation. Instead, in the opening account he subjugated some of the chronological details in order to create a more poetic structure that made the account memorable, portable, transferable, and (dare I say?) catechetical. This served a vital pedagogical function. And pedagogy was imminently practical in ancient times. After all, the Hebrew people at large had to remember everything — they had no pocket Old Testaments to consult.
另外一個主要的觀點是認為這兩個段落不是相同的。是，他們是在談論同一件事，他們都是事實，他們都傳遞了真的歷史。但是主要關注的不是順序和秩序，而是在整個信息和結構中可以發現的。作者並不是要教導他的原始聽眾有關創造的秩序。在開頭的記載，他為了創造一個更詩體的結構，抑制了一些按年代順序排列的細節，使得這個記載變得容易記憶，攜帶和傳送，同時，也更容易教導。這發揮了一個教學的功能。教學在古代是一個很重要的實踐。畢竟，希伯來人就總的來說，必須記得所有的事情──他們沒有舊約小冊可以參考。

And so, again, let me be clear: This opening account of the creation is a true accounting of God, who did create the world, who did so in a wise, magnificent, supernatural and natural, orderly fashion, who then populated that world with creatures. Further this same God in the course of that creation made two people – Adam and Eve — and placed them in a real garden and gave them a real commission and a real prohibition to live by. As such, Genesis is certainly a true accounting; it is not some sort of myth, or flight of fancy, or fiction.
如此，我再說明清楚：這個創造開頭的記載是上帝真實的記載，他的確創造了世界，以一個智慧、宏偉的、超自然也是自然的、有秩序的方式，然後使生物遍滿了世界。更進一步，同一個上帝在這個創造過程中，創造了兩個人──亞當和夏娃──把他們安置在一個真的花園，給他們一個真的使命，以及真的禁止令，作為其準則來生活。如此，創世記當然是一個真的記載，它不是某種的神話，想象或幻想和虛構的小說。

The prologue to Genesis is a historical account, but it is a poetically historical account whose impact is not to be felt so much in the individual sequence of its days but in the overall message of the creation week. And the message of the week, as a whole, is this: At the center of God’s purposeful, all-powerful, creative work are two people who are privileged to be, and commissioned to live, as Images of God, filling the creation with others who bear God’s likeness and managing God’s creation on his behalf and for his glory.
創世記的開場白是一個歷史的記載，但它是一個詩意的歷史記載，它的作用不是其個別日子的順序，而是在創造星期中的整體信息。此信息是：上帝有目的、全能、有創意的工作，其中心是兩個人。他們被賦予特權和使命，作為神的形像，使創造界布滿其他具有神樣式的人，代表上帝，為了祂的榮耀而管理造物。

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/sco_lindsay/ot.sco_lindsay.gen.1.1-2.3.doc