It is extremely inefficient to turn a Hebrew radical over to English or Greek, and then analyse the radical and its derivatives thro English or European linguistics etymological reasoning. Regardless if such analyses are done by "authoritative scholars". DO NOT convert a Hebrew radical into an English radical and then analyse the Hebrew word using the English radical.
It is prone to faux-root-words reverse manufacturing. For example, by presuming that the word {ברא} means {create}. Most probably, {create} is an idiomatic meaning of {ברא}.
How can we allow ourselves to trust those so-called "authoritative scholars" when they do not give any evidence of their head-scratching deduction? And for any evidence that they do provide, then any of us should be allowed to derive alternative analyses using the same degree of LAXITY, those so-called authorities gave themselves in manufacturing such deductions.
Like the derivation of PIE, a presumed virtual predecessor of Sanskrit and European languages, we have to extend the trunk of the tree one level deeper to found the root meaning as a common factor over the various denominators of the derivatives of {ברא}. In that respect, those old "authoritative scholars" are outdated and are less valid and less trustable because they lack the modern mathematical and logical linguistic analysis we use today. We have to renormalize their analyses (or lack thereof) and question how they arrived at their presumptuous meanings.
There is this famous case that we have to consider. Differences in Genesis creation stories .
There was a plan, an architecture. By presuming that {ברא} is implementation, bringing to fruition, making whole, the plan and architecture. Where {create} is merely an idiomatic meaning. As in, I "created" this application in fulfilling the architecture drawn up by the architect. I didn't create the application. "Create" is my presumptuous use of English.
Also, it is a valid question that, why can't Genesis 1:1 {בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ} be taken to mean
- At the start of the implementing/creating of-by Elohim of the heavens and earth.
- {ראש} means "head". So, G'd gave us a head-start in making whole His plans for the heavens and earth.
That is why in Qabbalah, humankind is to complete the creation of the Universe. That is why the Hebrew text of Psalms 8 says that humankind is nearly G'd. just a little lesser than G'd, and empowered with all the glory and power. Note, the phrase in Psalm 8 is {מאלהים = than G'd} rather than {ממאלהים = than (ones)from-G'd}. Moreover {מאלהים = (ones)from-G'd} has no cross-referential occurrence and therefore invalid.
G'd did not "create" the Universe in Genesis account. He gave us a head-start in making-whole the architecture of the Universe. Maybe we should stop using the English word "create" because it is ambiguous and misleading. And prone to aliasing.
Let's also intrigue ourselves with Genesis 1:2:
- והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום
- and/so the earth was unformed and empty and darkness upon the face of the crevice.
- {תהום} is interesting here, because it is used to mean a tearing/break of a surface, that enables water to spring out of the earth, in various parts of the Bible.
- Why is there a tear/crevice with darkness upon its surface?
- Is it to mean a tear/break in of a surface/plane/continuum, and there was darkness over the surface/plane/continuum of the break?
To quench the thirst for "authoritative scholars", let me bring in Sforno who opined that there was no time prior to the event of Gen 1:1 but an UNBROKEN continuum. Let me extend his opinion. or perhaps it was already his opinion, there was a tear in this continuum.
The 1st 3 verses of Genesis 2:
Analyse the phrase {מלאכתו אשר ברא אלהים לעשות}. If {ברא} were to mean {create}, then the phrase would sound illogical as "His task/commitment which Elohim created to do." I mean you could be philosophical about it and say that G'd used JIRA to create a backlog task for Him to do.
Also, Rashi questioned: how could G'd have "completed" His work on the 7th day, if He was supposed to have ceased to rest from His work/task on the 7th day? So Rashi talks about an asymptotic effect (hair's breadth), that would appear as though He completed His work on the 7th day.
In any case, {ברא} is to bring to completion/wholeness {מלאכת = a task/plan}.
So not good in attempting to comprehend the Bible in English by using ambiguous and aliased English words like "create".
The Genesis account is to effect wholeness{ברא} and completeness {יכל} of a task/plan {מלאכת}. Stop using the English word "create" to understand Genesis 1 and 2 or any of its occurrence in the rest of the Bible.
And BTW, there is no such thing as "angels" because {מלאך = (someone)en-tasked}, and {מלאכתו = his being en-tasked, commissioned to a task}. "Angel" is yet another Euro-Persian pagan contamination of turning a Hebrew radical into European radical which then started a whole industry of reverse-manufacturing ideologies and meanings not found in the Hebrew text. An industry which created the justifications for the massacre and persecution of my people for the past 1900 years.
Therefore, {הבריא} which is a causative, from {ברא = making whole}, would be "to enrich". And so then modern Hebrew greeting {לבריאות} = to richness of wholesomeness/health.
