The meaning of 'bara'

I've come across this interesting paper on the meaning of the Hebrew word 'bara', which is often translated as 'created' in the Genesis 1 creation account.

The word is used selectively:

v1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

v21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

v27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Its interesting to ponder on why these aspects were selected for bara creation. Traditional lexical entries for the word have defined it as meaning 'to create or form' but this paper suggests that it is better rendered as 'to separate'. Van Wolde describes it as being:

... a temporal process in which God moves the objects along a path, at the beginning of which they are not distin- guished and proximate, and at the end of which they are spatially distant and kept separate

This difference is a significant one. I don't think it would be in keeping with the context of this chapter to force the meaning of the words to fit the physical creation processes (this approach nearly always ends up going wrong somewhere along the line), but rather to think about what spiritual messages this is giving us....

P.S A number of scholars and commentators disagree with this thesis. See here, for example.

Bad Religion

Last week there were a number of reports in the press of a debate between Tony Blair and Chris Hitchins on whether religion is a force for good in the world or not. Most accounts agree that Hitchins won the debate, indeed he has previously written at great length on the evils of religion (e.g. 'God is not good').

For those of us with a positive experience of religion it is not hard to see how distorted Hitchens' views are. He is more one sided than the Second Test in Adelaide, rarely giving any acknowledgement to the other side of the story (though ironically his younger brother, Peter, is a convert to christianity from atheism).

But, with a tip of the hat and a nod of the head to Heaven in ordinarie, I saw this quote from Charles Dickens' character 'the Ghost of Christmas Present'. It neatly describes the difference between good and bad religion, a difference which often parallels that between good and bad science.

‘There are some upon this earth of yours,’ returned the Spirit, ‘who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.’

Life out of death

Perhaps Agatha Christie would have been intrigued by this piece of new research.

The chemistry of life revolves around six key chemicals. Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur make up the major ingredients of many of our body's building materials.

However, from the bottom of a lake in California comes a bacteria that uses arsenic as a substitute for phosphorus. Arsenic has a similar size and charge to phosphorus which makes the switch possible and this in turn presents interesting discussion points. If phosphorus can be substituted then what else? Could there be an entirely different system of life out there based on different elements?

Whilst this is a genuinely novel discovery it is unlikely that it can be extended so far. For a start even this finding has its limits:

It is thought that downstream metabolic processes are generally not compatible with As-incorporating molecules because of differences in the reactivities of P- and As-compounds. These downstream biochemical pathways may require the more chemically stable P-based metabolites

This microbe probably represents the outer fringes of what makes up the biosphere, rather than the doorway into another world of possibilities.

Planet earth from above

NASA has published some breathtaking images taken by satellites orbiting the planet. The example above is of the Norwegian coast.

Take a look here.

The Design Argument

If the argument for design be thus demonstrated, do not the details urgently raise the question of whether the designer was all good? The ruthless setting of one species against another, armed with ingenious and seemingly cruel weapons of war; the disregard of one except as prey for the other; the offensive traits developed in the world of competitive life, would seem to implicate God in the cruel world of Nature, without showing any way out of the dilemma.

The phrase 'The Finger of God' as used by Jesus was with reference to the casting out of demons and would suggest that some forces in nature are not of God, however powerful and ingenious; and are indeed the subject of God's action against them. It has to be remembered that the ingeniousness of the resistance of the blood stream is matched by that of the invading bacteria.

Ron Storer

BioLogos

For those who want to look into the area of Faith and Science through the eyes of professionals (and not amateurs like myself!) then this site has some fascinating material.

On squeaky voices...

The fact that the early universe gives rise to an 'interesting' abundance of Helium-4, that is, neither zero nor 100%, is a consequence of a delicate coincidence between the gravitational and weak interactions.

There was a tiny window of opportunity for the formation of the light elements at the beginning of the Big Bang. In the first 0.04 seconds it was far too hot for little nuclei not to disintegrate. On the other hand after around 8 minutes the temperature was too low to force the wee nucleons to come in range of the strong nuclear force. So in 14 billion years of history there was only one period of time, just long enough to boil a pan of pasta, during which Hydrogen and Helium could have been formed.

The proportion of neutrons and protons that combined to form either hydrogen or helium is dictated by the various actions of different forces (as alluded to in the quote from Barrow and Tipler above). The maths works out at about 1 He for every 10 H nuclei.

Were the forces not so delicately balanced then we would have 100% Helium or 100% Hydrogen. In the former case life wouldn't be possible (no water, stars that burnt up faster). In the later life would probably have been possible.