who really created the Heavens and the Earth?

mark kennedy said:

For a concrete meaning try an actual lexicon. Bara is translated 'created' for a reason, your being pedantic.

Click to expand...

Yet create is an abstract. I've used the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon

mark kennedy said:

There's nothing abstract about the word, 'the writer uses writer uses scientifically precise language':

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. Things created, made and set by God: the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10).' (Vine's Expository)
​

The primitive root is unused:

bârâʼ, baw-raw'; a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):—choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make fat (Strong’s Dictionary).​

create - to create, shape, form

To Cut, to carve our, to form by cutting.
To create, to produce​

Creator

Used of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1), of men (Gen. 1:27; 5:1, 2; 6:6) (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon)
​

In Genesis 1:1 and 19 it is in the Qal perfect:

Qal Perfect Genesis 1:1 19t.; Imperfect יִבְרָא Genesis 1:21,27; Numbers 16:30; Infinitive בְּראֹ Genesis 5:1; Imperative בְּרָא Psalm 51:12; Participle בּוֺרֵא Isaiah 42:5 10t.; suffix בֹּרַאֲךָ Isaiah 43:1; בּוֺרְאֶיךָ Ecclesiastes 12:1; — shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity,​

1. Object heaven and earth Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:3 Isaiah 45:18 (twice in verse); mankind Genesis 1:27 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 5:1,2 Genesis 6:7 Deuteronomy 4:32; Psalm 89:48; Isaiah 45:12; the host of heaven Isaiah 40:26; heavens Isaiah 42:5; ends of the earth Isaiah 40:28; north and south Psalm 89:13; wind Amos 4:13; the תנינים Genesis 1:21 (P).
2. The individual man Malachi 2:10 ( father) Ecclesiastes 12:1; the smith and the waster Isaiah 54:16 (twice in verse); Israel as a nation Isaiah 43:15; Jacob Isaiah 43:1; the seed of Israel Isaiah 43:7.
3. New conditions and circumstances: righteousness and salvation Isaiah 45:8; darkness and evil Isaiah 45:7; fruit of the lips Isaiah 57:19; a new thing חֲדָשָׁה (a woman encompassing a man) Jeremiah 31:22; בְּרִיאָה (swallowing up the Korahites) Numbers 16:30 (J); cloud and flame over Zion Isaiah 4:5.
4. Of transformations: a clean heart Psalm 51:12 ("" חִדֵּשׁ); new heaven and earth Isaiah 65:17 (in place of old); transformation of nature Isaiah 41:20; with double accusative בורא ירושׁלם גילה transform Jerusalem into rejoicing Isaiah 65:18. (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

The only form to retain the literal meaning of the primitive root is the Hiphil form:
The point your arguing in circles is pedantic at best.

to be fat

(Hiphil) to make yourselves fat. (Outline of Biblical Usage)
​

I've seen this before, the unused primitive roots speaks of the etymology not the meaning:

1 in~SUMMIT {בְּרֵאשִׁית / bê'rey'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]} he~did~FATTEN(Verb) {בָּרָא / ba'ra}1] Elohiym {אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him} AT {אֵת / eyt} the~SKY~s2 {הַשָּׁמַיִם / ha'sha'ma'yim} and~AT {וְאֵת / wê'eyt} the~LAND {הָאָרֶץ / ha'a'rets}

in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land, (MT on the Torah)​

The literal translation requires an explanation:

In the example of Genesis 1:1 the verb is the Hebrew word ברא (bara), meaning "to fill," and the definite objects, the ones receiving the action of the verb, are the sky and the land. Just as the "ox" moved toward the "mark" when plowing, the word את (the plowshare) plows the path from the verb of a sentence (the ox) to the definite object (the mark). (MT Commentary on the Torah)
​

The meaning is not abstract, vague or nebulous. It is a Qal perfect absolute, scientifically precise meaning.

Click to expand...

"create" is abstract in the sense does it does not inherently have any concrete qualities to it. standing alone there is nothing tangible or objective with the word create.

For example the noun "hammer" is a concrete as we immediately know what a hammer is, what it looks/feels like and a lot of concrete qualities like shape, size and even weight, colour or what it's made out of. The verb "to hammer" automatically inherits all these concrete qualities and immediately has the concrete hammer as it's reference point. We of course can hammer a hammer but it can be used more abstractly where it's just not a hammer that we can use but we can hammer other objects. If I poke with a stick this is not "hammering" and the action of hammering is specific and it relates back to the concrete action of the tool. We can even go more abstract with it and describe a headache like a hammering and this all is defined back to the concrete object of the hammer as it related to how you feel when you head striking of a hammer over and over. This word can be used differently today than it was used 100 years ago as the materials of a hammer and perhaps shape and design of a hammer may have been different so the concrete qualities of it change base on what a normative hammer looks like today.

The word "create" does not have these concrete qualities and so it is more abstract than the verb "to hammer". We don't consider it abstract because English is a very abstract language and we think very abstractly so calling simple actions like "create" abstract seems silly but the word is abstract because it has no unique concrete qualities to it. What does "create" look like, what does it smell like, what does it feel like? These are what define it as more abstract or more concrete and because "create" has no inherent tangible qualities to it then it is abstract.

The verb however "fatten" or "fattening" are very concrete verbs as they immediately has a concrete reference point which is "fat". It has very accessible features to it as we know what is looks like, feels like, smells like, taste like and even sounds like and this framework behind the action of Gen 1:1. If we want to truly understand how ancients approach this we need to put away our abstracts and look at it using concretes.

mark kennedy said:

Unqualified rhetoric, from your own source material:

In the example of Genesis 1:1 the verb is the Hebrew word ברא (bara), meaning "to fill," and the definite objects, the ones receiving the action of the verb, are the sky and the land. Just as the "ox" moved toward the "mark" when plowing, the word את (the plowshare) plows the path from the verb of a sentence (the ox) to the definite object (the mark). (MT Commentary on the Torah)​

The larger context indicated the use of an untranslated definite article, את :

The word את is also used over 7,000 times in the Hebrew language such as can be seen in the very first verse of the Bible.

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃​

Because the word את has no equivalent in the English language, it is not translated, but to demonstrate its meaning in this verse I will translate Genesis 1:1 into English, but retain the word את in its correct position.

In the beginning Elohiym filled את the sky and את the land​

The untranslated word את is used as a grammatical tool to identify the definite object of the verb. (MT Commentary on the Torah)​

No where is bârâʼ (בָּרָא H1254), described as an abstraction, but rather:

The writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. (Vines)​

It has a definite article indicating concrete objects of the verb, the sky and land 'heaven and earth', are obviously concrete. The term bârâ, is Qal perfect absolute, scientifically precise meaning. Used only of God to indicate God the object or concept into being Ex nihilo.



There's nothing elusive about the meaning of the word translated 'created' in Genesis 1. The grammar, syntax and construction gives us a concrete, comprehensive exegetical understand of the meaning in English.

Click to expand...

The English "create" is still an abstract and the Hebrew word used is a concrete so there is an inherent conflict between their focus. There is nothing elusive about the Hebrew but the English is not it's perfect reflection. I'm pointing out the contrast in these world views and that the Ancient mindset did not have the capacity to understand abstracts like we do and they would approach concepts using concretes which "create" is not, nor is "beginning". it may be a good translation for an abstract language/word view but if we want to get to the heart of what Gen 1:1 meant to its original audience then we should approach it using concretes.

mark kennedy said:

Actually the word does mean 'to create, to cut, to fatten', when taken the primitive foot literally. The problem is he is saying the term is abstract not concrete, which is as pointless as it is wrong.

Click to expand...

I am saying the English is abstract and the hebrew is concrete

The text is as follows:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There are contrasting elements here with bara that help us develop it's meaning.

In the beginning God bara the heavens and the earth. The context of bara is further shaped by the following verse "the earth was without form and void" so what is bara to a land that is without form and void? This does not trumpet ex nihilo but rather reveals a filling up.

Since the concrete meaning of bara actually is "fatten" there is no conflict here and "without form and void" is complimented with bara which can be understood as the filling up of this void.

Don't believe me? Fatten is the concrete meaning of the word and how ancient Hebrews approached concepts. When the text uses this word and then immediately follows it with an object that needs "fattening" how do you think it reinforces this concrete meaning?

Ex nihilo is a very abstract way to understand creation where taking something that needs filling and filling it up is a very concrete way to understand the same action. I trust the exegesis "create" because I think in abstracts but that doesn't mean this is how the Ancient Hebrews approached the text.