To Design, To Form, To Build, To Do

A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis V2.0

[This is an excerpt from an exhaustive personal study of most of the first 9 chapters of the book of Genesis. This is a vastly expanded effort from the original version that can currently be found here downloadable for free. The purpose of this exercise is to compare a non-symbolic literal reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the merits of this study is encouraged!]

Pivotal to The Beginning narrative as well as Sabbath observation is what it means to “work” and to “rest”. A strictly Newtonian understanding is impractical and arbitrary, yet the concept is serious enough that at times to defy Sabbath ordinances was a capital offense. Making sense of this seemingly arbitrary standard is necessary to understanding the context of Genesis 1-2:4 and how those principles apply throughout the Bible.

Bā·rā - To design

The term bā·rā (בָּרָא) which is typically translated “to create” is used five times in Genesis 1, specifically in verses 1:1, 1:21, and thrice in 1:27. Throughout the Bible, it is largely reserved for describing an activity of God or a statement attributed to Him. Only in Joshua 17:15, 18 and 2 Samuel 12:17 is bā·rā used in the context of a human’s words or behavior.

However, when considering the context of the appearance of the root ברא throughout the Bible, the more accurate translation may be “to design”. Although this may seem to be a deviation, it is a logically coherent consideration.

For example, Genesis 2:3b directly translated from the Hebrew reads, “...He rested from all the work which had [designed] (bā·rā בָּרָא) God and [done] (‘ā·śāh עָשָׂה).” When read plainly in any earnest translation, the task of “designing” is differentiated from the effort of “doing”. The implication is that these terms are not both constructive as is the common modern understanding. Bā·rā (בָּרָא) is specifically planning or designing, where the verbs yā·ṣār (יָצָֽר), way·yi·ḇen (בָוַיִּבֶן֩), and ‘ā·śāh (עָשָׂה) are actions made towards realizing a prescribed design.

The test for is straightforward: Does using the term “design” as the translation for bā·rā (בָּרָא) result in a sensible reading of those passages within their context? In nearly all of the 55 instances of the root bā·rā (בָּרָא) throughout the Old Testament (per Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance ), this translation is not only equally reasonable, but the economy of the logic in those verses is markedly improved.

While most appearances of bā·rā (בָּרָא) throughout the Old Testament is in direct reference to The Beginning or referencing God Himself, the few independent uses carry an implication of a novel construct. Exodus 34:10 emphasizes a truly unique act by stating, “I will do marvels, such as [have not been designed (niḇ·rə·’ū נִבְרְא֥וּ)] in all the [region], nor in any nation;” Numbers 16:30 similarly mentions that “Yahweh designs (yiḇ·rā יִבְרָ֣א) a new thing (bə·rî·’āh בְּרִיאָ֞ה),” using adjacent bā·rā rooted terms autologically.

Some uses like in Psalm 51:10 which states,”[Design] in me a clean heart, O God,” waxes poetic yet continues to support the idea of a novel construct. The “heart” that the author is asking for is not a refurb or replacement of an inadequate organ, but an appeal for a revision of fundamental character; A result that would be foreign to the songwriter as well as to the human condition.

There are only two exceptions to the “design” translation being a strong translation candidate:

The appearance of bā·rā (בָּרָא) in Joshua 17:15 and 17:18 are typically translated to “cut down” or “clear” in the context of a forested area. However, one could still argue that the collateral context of this prescription is to “design” their place in that region.

Ezekiel 23:47 is the one true outlier where the conjugation ū-ḇā-rê (וּבָרֵ֥א) is understood to mean “cut down” or “execute” in the context of terminating life. Although this is part of a prescribed punishment designed by God, this is the usage most distant from that of the other roughly 50 “design” oriented instances.

Although bā·rā (בָּרָא) is often considered a justification for the philosophy of creatio ex nihilo, in all cases bā·rā (בָּרָא) is referring to designs not yet known to us. But as suggested in Genesis 1:26 by the statement, “after our likeness”, the designs of God’s creation are not unique to His knowledge, and always emerge from extant materials like “waters” or “earth”. This is emphasized in the explicit naming of day and night (Gen 1:5), the sky or heavens (1:8), and earth and seas (1:10) implying such ubiquitous constructs did not exist in this universe prior.

More contextual analyses for each instance of bā·rā (בָּרָא) that is within the scope of this analysis will appear with those verse analyses.

Yā·ṣār - To form

The term yā·ṣār (יָצָֽר) means to form as if from an existing design. Often used in the Bible in reference to pottery, the implication is that one is producing a known design. For example, despite the many shapes and stylings that pottery can take, the categorical result of an earthenware vessel is inherently banal. In short, the implication is that whatever one “forms”, despite variations, is not a novel “design”. This is the term used in nearly all aspects of the story of Adam in verses 2:7 through 2:19 suggesting that any “designs” were established prior.

One could argue that bā·rā suggests that each “design” was new and yā·ṣār is the process by which each “design” is “formed”. However, in 2:19 God appears to be “forming” (way·yî·ṣer וַיִּצֶר֩) a variety of creatures after having “formed” Adam (way·yî·ṣer וַיִּיצֶר֩) in 2:7. Considering that the Bible follows a linear narrative, this implies that this is being done in an age after the six Beginning yā·mîm, and therefore these formations were not the first of their designs to be produced. God appears to have formed a select run of His designs to populate The Garden as discussed in greater detail in Genesis 2:19.

Way·yi·ḇen - To build

Adding further nuance, Eve was neither “designed” nor “formed”. Per Genesis 2:22, she was “built” (way·yi·ḇen בָוַיִּבֶן֩). This term is often translated as “fashioned” or describing things that are assembled from exiting components. Throughout the Bible, way·yi·ḇen describes the assembly of altars and homes which are necessarily composed of various building blocks. This term is distinct from bā·rā (בָּרָא) because something being “built” is not a novel “design” but an established form. It is also differentiated from yā·ṣār (יָצָֽר) which has the implication of synthesizing a singular form or material. The implications of this deviation of terminology are discussed at greater length in the Genesis 22:2a analysis.

‘Ā·śāh, way·hî - To do, to be

The verb ‘ā·śāh (עָשָׂה) means “to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application ”[https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6213.htm] This generic action term is used to describe making the expanse (Gen 1:7), the two great lights (Gen 1:16), and the beasts (Gen 1:25). The use of ‘ā·śāh is frequent and broad throughout the Bible, including products that could be more explicitly described using the aforementioned verbs but considered common enough that specificity is not required. This would be like “making dinner” or “doing a meeting” in english.

The use of ‘ā·śāh (עָשָׂה) in The Beginning suggests that the actions being described are somehow common or inevitable results. Being that the beginning of our one and only universe is being described, this seems a bit dismissive considering the careful and consistent use of other verbs in this narrative otherwise. Being from the perspective of God, the use of this summary verb may be suggesting that, to Him, these actions are not special, whether in difficulty or uniqueness, undeserving of greater specificity. Alternatively, it may be that these features were self-fulfilling as part of the plan as described in Genesis 1:1. Teleological Complexity Emergence postulates that complexities evolve organically as a result of a purposeful origin and supervised manifestation.

To split these hairs even more finely, way·hî (וַֽיְהִי) translates as to “be” or “become”. Light (Gen 1:3), earth and seas (Gen 1:9), plants (Gen 1:11), and land animals (Gen 1:24) are said to have “become” as a result of God’s declaration. Again, it is as though there was the inevitability of emergent complexity of these constructs in particular and at those times. After His initial “design” was put into place, these particular eras may have needed little more than adequate supervision to manifest the desired result. In any case, the significance is downplayed either in comparison to God, or as an inevitable result of His “design”.

A hair worth splitting?

One might argue that these verbs are essentially synonymous and that any contextual differences are symbolic or poetic. However, it is when they are taken at face value within the context of the original Hebrew phrasing that the specificity of the terms selected becomes apparent. This delineation of verb usage is notable in Genesis 2:4 (broken down further in that analysis) where it is “the generations” which were “created” (bā·rā בָּרָא), but “in the day that Yahweh God made (‘ă-śō-wṯ עֲשׂ֛וֹת) the earth and the heavens.” When considered plainly along with the verb choices of the other yamim, the “generations” that were “created” specifically include the animal life as well as humans. Plant life and non-living constructs like the land, sea, and celestial bodies are not included in the specific wording of that verse.

The Genesis 1:1 headnote verse suggesting to the reader that he Beginning narrative as a whole is an act of “design” or “creation” may appear to contradict the distinctions being made here. However, this is consistent with the relativistic usage shown in Exodus 34:10. In that example, the “designs” are things yet unknown in that “land”, suggesting that the novelty can be conditional to an audience. But during the realization of each era of The Beginning, the work is described relative to God with terms descriptive to His involvement. To Him, these are banal constructs that are simply “done” or announced to evoke their existence. Animal life seems to be the unique rendering of this exercise requiring additional “design”, followed by the intentionally derived human design.

Cosmological science suggests that the precipitation of matter from the beginning of time into the increasingly complex molecular forms we see throughout the universe is an inevitability. With deep space telescopy we can witness the different epochs of this cosmic evolution and have modeled aspects of it convincingly.

When Genesis 1 is examined with similar scrutiny, we not only find a similar order of events suggested thousands of years prior, but the verbiage suggests a similar sense of inevitability. Although some may believe God was comprehensively hands-on, the word choice does not require that. To the contrary, of the eight times “God said” something, four of them simply “came to be”.

Interestingly, the only three verses in which “design” (or “create”) appears are for the three most difficult to answer questions in science and philosophy: Why did the universe begin? Where did life come from? How is there human consciousness?

Some may identify a potential conflation between the aforementioned observations and Genesis 5:1-2. In this headnote to Adam’s genealogy, there is a reiteration of the “design” (bā·rā בָּרָא) of mankind during the 6th yom. However, in Hebrew, ’ā·ḏām (אָדָם) serves as both the proper name for the man named “Adam” as well as the term for “mankind” in both singular exclusive and singular inclusive usage (describing a lone individual or a collective group). The result is a few sentences that resemble the Laurel and Hardy “Who's on first” sketch.

A plain reading of those verses translated to nearly any language may appear to suggest that Adam and Eve were the first humans created, but sincerely parsing the definitions of ’ā·ḏām (אָדָם) with the understanding that punctuation marks and vowels did not exist in the Pentateuch until the medieval period (scriptio continua), it is entirely reasonable to interpret 5:1 as describing the creation of mankind, and continuing in 5:3 with the individual Adam and his descendents. This is consistent with the genealogies of Ishmael (Gen 25:12: and Isaac (Gen 25:19) which both refer to their parentage before continuing on to the primary subject.

Alternatively, If we entertain the idea that Adam and Eve are the first humans, that suggests as many as nine generations of children were exclusively the descendents of Adam and Eve. One would have to presume that these identical men and women with an autosomal inbreeding coefficient of 1.0 had been inbreeding for over a thousand years before finding spouses outside of their tribe. Although the Bible doesn’t include the specifics on the wives or most of their multitude of children, it is illogical to conclude that the genealogy suggests that Noah’s family tree had no branches. Otherwise, God would have needed to form additional humans arbitrarily, fabricating their histories and variations out of plain cloth to provide a sufficient population base. This approach is significantly more difficult to logically and paleontologically resolve.

At roughly 700,000 words, the Bible as a whole rarely spends more than a few chapters on any given character, let alone takes time to provide exhaustive superfluous detail. With the relative brevity of many stories, some only suggested by a single sentence, one should assume that the pedestrian day-to-day goings on of people like the Adam’s family were similar to that of other humans. His children certainly married those from other communities of humans descended from those described as being “designed” (bā·rā בָּרָא) during the 6th yom.