have some inkling of 对···略有所知
simultaneous 同时的, 同时发生的
entirety
n. 全部; 完全
transitory
adj. 短暂的; 无常的; 瞬息的
let go of 释放,放开
in that 因为
have nothing of 不理睬
dictum
[dic·tum || 'dɪktəm] n.
名言; 格言 posit
[pos·it || 'pɑzɪt /'pɒz-] v.
安置, 断定, 布置 in the grasp of
在…掌握中 immobility
[im·mo·bil·i·ty || ɪ‚məʊ'bɪlətɪ] n.
固定性, 静止 confer on
授予 abide in
〈旧〉在…居住〔逗留〕
succession
[suc·ces·sion || sək'seʃn] n.
连续, 继位, 继承权 perpetual
[per·pet·u·al || pər'petʃʊəl /pə'p-] adj.
永久的, 没完没了的, 不断的 omnipresent
[,om·ni'pres·ent || ‚ɑmnɪ'preznt /‚ɒ-] adj.
无所不在的, 同时遍在的 surpass
[sur·pass || sər'pæs /sə'pɑːs] v.
超越, 胜过 vista
[vis·ta || 'vɪstə] n.
狭长的景色, 展望, 街景 in the act of
正要做(某事) providence
[prov·i·dence || 'prɑvɪdəns /'prɒ-] n.
深谋远虑; 上帝; 天意 vantage point
n.
有利位置,优越地位,优势
willed
[wɪld] adj.
有某种意志的 so much for
…到此为止
utterly
['ut·ter·ly || 'ʌtərlɪ] adv.
完全, 绝对, 全然 tantamount
[tan·ta·mount || 'tæntəmaʊnt] adj.
同等的, 相当于...的, 相等的
1 Let us consider, then, insofar as we can, what the nature of divine substance must be so that we can have some inkling of the kind of knowledge the divine mind has.
2 One who lives in time progresses in the present from the past and into the future.
今在昔在以后永在的神。
3 Whatever is in time—even though, as Aristotle says, time had no beginning and has no ending and extends into infinity—is still not what may correctly be called ‘eternal.’
4 Those philosophers are wrong, then, who took Plato’s dictum that the world had no beginning and had no end and inferred from that that the created world is co-eternal with the Creator.从句
5 It is one thing to proceed through infinite time, as Plato posits, but quite another to embrace the whole of time in one simultaneous present. 省略
6 It never ceases to be and therefore is an imitation of eternity, but it is balanced on the knifeedge of the present, the brief and fleeting instant, which we may call a kind of costume of eternity. 但是他永远也不可能停止将要所以他只是在效法永恒,但是他平衡在了现在的边缘,
短暂即逝的片刻,我们叫做一种永恒的外衣。
7 But since it is not equal to that eternal state, it falls from immobility to change, from the immediacy of a continuing present to the infinite extent of past and future moments, and it confers on whatever possesses it the appearance of what it imitates.
8 And since it could not abide in permanence, it seized instead on the infinite flow of time, an endless succession of moments, and in that way could appear to have a continuity, which is not the same as permanence.
9 You insist that those things of the future are inevitable if God can see them, but you must admit that not even men can make inevitable those things that they see.
10 And it is similarly true that his observation does not affect the things he sees that are present to him but future in terms of the flow of time.没搞懂
11 It is in this light that we can answer the question you posed a while back about our providing a part of God’s knowledge. 这句有点难.
12 In this way, our hopes and our prayers are not at all in vain. 上帝必垂听你的祈祷
Comment
The passage really impressed me with its clear mind and convincing testimony, which also intrigues us to dig into it for more. Coming without disappointing, we indulged in his talented spiritual cosmos with his companying to guide us to the divine paradise.
People may object his idealistic concept the whole prose based on and also the unbelievable illustration of god eternal and omniscient. But you cannot naysay to admit he, indeed, although may not comprehensively, give us a inner insight to the opposite of mundane world.
Starting up with introduction of nature of divine and the knowledge, hardly can we digest, we understand what he wanna tell us is about the totally different opinion of time between god and us. And all that is to say, that if we use proper terms, then, following Plato, we should say that God is eternal but the world is perpetual.
Conceding that judgment, you may insist that those things in future are inevitable if god can see them, but you must accept that not even man can make inevitable those things that they see. Although god foreknows what we are doing and will do, that in his way they are all coming simultaneously, he confer us the power to change it at the meantime, also under his prescience. So why is it important that they are not necessary if, from the aspect of divine knowledge, it turns out that they are tantamount to being necessary?
Maybe you define yourself as the atheist the one who don’t believe in god but rules; don’t trust any almighty spirit that intervenes and controls, whereas you learn the word by the science of the axioms which operates so perfectly manipulated as a machine that sometimes you wonder how could it happen, which also bring you into the dilemma. So next time when you say no, please make a one hundred percent sure. |