Unfortunately you have not been able to show from its use in scriptures that bara means out of nothing. In fact it is quite clear from scripture that bara is most often used where the creation was from pre existing materials, even when God used natural processes to bring his creation into being, like when he flowers to bloom in the spring time or created you and me. bara can be used for creation that is out of nothing, as it it in a couple of verses describing God crating the heavens and the earth. So if bara can be used for creation from nothing, though more often for creation from exiting material, if it can be used to describe creation through natural processes as well as supernatural wonders, then I would say the one common feature that all the uses of bara have in common is the proclamation that it is God who made each created thing, according to his plan an purpose, that each creation is the handiwork of God. bara declares each creation made by God, without looking at what it is made from or what processes God used. bara is about God creating and what God created, not how he created it.
The meaning of Bara is the opening chapter of Genesis has profound theological significance and 'creation out of nothing' being one facet. It can be used in tandem with asaph and various other kinds of creation but when it comes to original creation it is 'out of nothing'. You already know that this is the meaning of the word in certain passages but since you are trying to ignore that fact I'll remind you once again. The idea of Bara expressing creation out of nothing is clearly seen in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; Gen.2:3; Isa. 40:26),
Other times it allows for a broader range of meaning, particularly when it is used in parallel with other verbs like asah and yasar. That does not negate the meaning of Bara meaning 'out of nothing', it just has a slightly different meaning in other texts.
Instead of denying that there are arguments to the contrary, why not show me some actual arguments for your claim?
There's not that much to argue, the exegesis of Bara has already been shown to have a precise technical meaning.
Not interested in how many examples you can find, I am interested in whether they have any decent arguments to support the claim.
No you are interested in having an argument that ignores sound Christian scholarship and the traditional understanding of the clear meaning of the texts in question.
Um no. No doctrinal issues are at stake, the bible clearly teaches ex nihilo creation by proclaiming God as the creator of everything. Original sin is about the effects of Adam's actions after he was created and your interpretation of the Greek in Roman's 5. The creationist understanding of our lineage depend on Adam being literally formed from dust rather than God using natural processes. Neither are ex nihilo creation. Special creation from dust is still creation from pre existing material.
It's still special creation, supernatural activity of God in time and space doing what only God can do which is the essential, foundational meaning of God as Creator. The New Testament is the lens by which you see the meaning of the Old Testament because it's a fuller revelation. The creation is a given, the creation of Adam is a given, the lineage of man beyond the creation of Adam is unknown in the Scriptures and Christian theism prior to the advent of Darwinism. Creation from the dust of the earth is still special creation no matter how you dice up the semantics of Bara.
However if you want to change the subject to topics that are specific to this subforum, I won't follow.
I know what the topic is and need I remind you that TEs are guests in this forum.
I thought it was the clear meaning of bara we were discussing. Tell me, do you think Gen 1:1 means the original creation of the universe because bara means ex nihilo, or do you think bara means ex nihilo because Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the universe? Because it sounds to me like a there is a circular argument here. Ex nihilo creation is there in Gen 1:1 because the verse declares God as the creator of everything that exists from the very beginning, not because you read ex nihilo creation into the meaning of bara when that is clearly not how the bible uses the word in any other context.
I'm well aware that the meaning of bara is not always 'out of nothing', in Genesis 1:1 it is the clear meaning. Now in other passages there are often a broader range of meanings but Bara is always attributed to God alone as the source of the action.
Again nothing to do with ex nihilo creation. You would need to show that Wesley or Scofield or the Catholic Church thought creating Adam from dust was the same as creating him from nothing.
No I don't, that's not what this is about. Your trying to saddle me with an interpretation I never had. It doesn't have to be ex nihilo, it simply has to be special creation inextricably linked to essential doctrine and it is.
Personally I think Wesley would have pretty surprised at the idea creating Adam from dust was ex nihilo, but he was pretty gracious and I am sure he would have just explained basic Latin to you, he would have been puzzled though, when he realised you know ex nihilo means 'from nothing'.
Your arguing against a strawman, your wasting my time.
Otherwise you are avoiding the question of the meaning of bara and going into areas I won't follow in this subforum.
Whatever
But we get the meaning of Genesis from the whole verse not just one word. Like I said, it is a circular argument to get a meaning of bara from Gen 1:1 if you read that meaning into bara to understand Gen 1:1. But take bara the way it is used in the rest of scripture and you still get God's creation of the universe from the beginning. And all the ex nihilo that tells us about.
This has nothing to do with the meaning of bara, your off on a tangent because you don't want to deal with the doctrinal issue. This is the doctrinal issue:
Now may I just inject a footnote here that has nothing to do with what I just said but it's important? In order to make this analogy work, in order for it to have any validity, since Christ is a historical figure, what must Adam be? An historical figure. I think this is one passage that strikes a fierce blow to the evolutionary hypothesis and to all of those people who say that Adam is representative of some sort of mystical pre‑historic drama made up by men and so forth and so on. Listen, if Adam is not a real one man whose one deed corrupted the whole race, then Christ is not a real one man whose one deed gives righteousness to those who believe. So when you're hassling on the scientific level about evolution, it would pay if you just get over here to the biblical level. If He is the second Adam, if He is as the Bible says the last Adam, then the first Adam has to be a real Adam.
Adam and the Reign of Death
Why don't you just face that fact that you are going to have to deal with the doctrinal issues from a Biblical point of reference?
I'm over the semantical hair splitting of Bara, enough is enough, the meaning of the word in not in dispute. The account of man's creation in Genesis 1:27 says that God created 'bara' man. Man was thus created, but also molded and fashioned. Bara is a word used in the Bible only for the creative activity of God. It implies something new has been brought into existence by divine command. Yatsar tells us how God formed and sculpted man (Adam/Eve), how He completed the design and crafting of man.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, there is no conflict based on the meaning of bara.
What has Paul's Greek in Romans 5 got to do with the Hebrew bara? Does Paul say Adam was created from nothing?
Back to your strawman argument
Sarah laughed because she understood the implication of God's promise, that this old woman was going to have some fun with her husband again. Gen 18:12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?" It was indeed a miracle that she conceived, but she still conceived in the natural and enjoyable way. No ex nihilo, simply the healing and restoration of their worn out plumbing, so they could fulfil God's plan and purpose.
The pleasure she is referring to is child birth, plain and simple. She believed that her womb was dead just as Abraham believed he was incapable of begetting a physical heir. The didn't believe it because by naturalistic means it's impossible, but with God all things are possible. They laughed because they didn't believe the promise, however, Abraham believed that the one who made the promise was faithful. Faith is personal much more then it's empirical, you don't have to know how but you have to be trusting Him.
Don't forget the bible describes you and me as God's creation too, and every green shoot in the spring. Of course everything can be traced back to a supernatural miracle if you go far back enough, but I am not sure that is the way
bara is being used, creation refers to what God creates and his creating it, not its past.
Note how Aquinas says 'another body of the same species'? Aquinas is talking about Adam being formed from dust rather than having parents. You should really have quoted a few of the previous sentences as well as we see how Aquinas links this to ex nihilo creation.
Now God, though He is absolutely immaterial, can alone by His own power produce matter by creation: wherefore He alone can produce a form in matter, without the aid of any preceding material form. For this reason the angels cannot transform a body except by making use of something in the nature of a seed, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 19). Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God.
God alone can create matter from nothing, without relying on preexisting material, so he can also produce a new form in material without relying on the previous form of the material. Aquinas is not calling the creation of Adam ex nililo creation, but says that the God who can created ex nihilo is alone able to give Adam a new form though made from dust. Of course Aquinas is talking about his interpretation of God forming Adam from the dust here, not the meaning of the word create.
It's not important, there are subtle variations of the meaning but the essential meaning does not change. It's used in parallel with other words and used in different contexts but the meaning is essentially that God did what only God can do.
Ok now I think we are coming to the end of any useful discussion. I would have enjoyed discussing actual evidence for your meaning of bara, but if you won't present any and instead claim you have done so, there is nothing else really to talk about.
You would have liked me to adopt the monolithic of bara, I know what the word means and how it is used. You had the best definition for the word right in front of you and then you went on to misrepresent what it means, how it's used and why it's important. Stop it and we can learn some things here, otherwise you will continue to talk in circles.
No, don't see how those are assumption behind anything I said. Still it has been good to search through scriptures looking at God and all he creates
Oh but this forum is going to need a good, in depth Bible study on the subject. I'll put up a complimentary thread in the common forum when I get it going.
Thanks for the exchange
Mark