Commenting
on the etymology of ברא and how
it originally denoted creation ex materia and not ex nihilo, we read the
following in TDOT:
Etymology. As yet, the root br’ has not yet been found in the older
Semitic languages outside the OT. Possibly it is related to the Old South Arab.
root br’ “to build,” mbr’, “building,” cf. SOQ. “to bring forth,
give birth to”; and Pun. root br’
seems to mean “a sculptor.” As far as its meaning is concerned, this root is
more closely connected with the use of the common Semitic root bny, “to build.” However, from the
viewpoint of the history of language, bny
is hardly to be derived from a postulated common Semitic root br’. The Heb. root br’ probably has the original meaning “to separate, divide.” (G.
Johannes Botterweck and Halmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume II [trans.
John T. Willis; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975], 245)
An example
of the verb denoting creation from preexisting matter (in the following
instance, the creation of the New heavens and earth from the Old) is Isa
65:17-18:
For, behold, I create (ברא) new heavens and a new earth, and the former
shall not be remembered, not come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for
ever in that which I create (ברא), for I am about to create (ברא) Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a
delight.
This flies
in the face of the claim that:
. . . Smith’s assertion that bara means “to organize” is highly
misleading at best, and downright erroneous at worst. (James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the
Differences between Mormonism and Christianity [2d ed.; Birmingham, Ala.: Solid
Ground Christian Books, 2008], 238 n. 14)
It is not
Joseph Smith’s claim in the King Follett Discourse that is “misleading at best,
and downright erroneous at worst” but White’s. For more on creation ex materia, see:
Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo
