I will have to await to see what her lexicographical analysis is, but her etymological argument that "bara' means separate and not create" is a little reminiscent of the Society's "stauros means stake and not cross". The usage of the word in the OT is certainly not as a generic word for separating things. Although there are a few cases of it having this usage where it can refer to persons or things (cf. Ezekiel 21:19, 23:47), it ususally occurs with God as its subject and refers to an act that produces something new (cf. chdsh "new (thing), to be new" used with br' in Psalm 104:30, Jeremiah 31:22); hence the naming of heaven, earth, and human beings in P's creation narrative (all objects of br' in 1:1, 27, 5:2), an act that evokes the naming of a child after being born (cf. other cases where it refers to birth, e.g. Psalm 102:18, 104:30, Ezekiel 28:13, 15). Separation itself may be commonly destructive, involving the disintegration of a previous whole, so the emphasis on God as the agent producing new things exceeds the generic sense of "separating" (see Psalm 104:29-30 where br' as the start of new life is contrasted with mwt, death, and cf. Isaiah 4:5 where Yahweh is prophesied as someday installing over Mount Zion a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night), and this is most clear in instances where br' is used interchangeably with `shh "make" and ytsr "form, fashion" (e.g. Genesis 5:1, Exodus 34:10, Isaiah 45:18, Amos 4:13). All of this is overlooked if br' is only understood as an act of separation.
She said technically "bara" does mean "create" but added: "Something was wrong with the verb. "God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?" She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground. "There was already water," she said.
I notice she mentions here just the acts narrated in v. 1 and 21. What about the creation of man in v. 27? There br' occurs twice, first it refers to just the creation of "one thing" ('dm, "humankind") and then it refers God creating 'dm as "male and female". Are we to think that man already existed prior to the sixth day but that what God did on the sixth day was separate the men from the women? How else could br' be understood in this passage without reading it as referring to creation? And outside of the creation narrative, br' commonly refers to the creation of "single" things (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:32, Isaiah 43:1, 45:12, 18, 54:16, Jeremiah 31:22, Ezekiel 28:13, Amos 4:13).
The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."
Of course. But this has little to do with the question of whether br' refers to "creation". Creation does not have to be ex nihilo. The ANE model in fact is one in which creation is the imposition of order and form to an initial formless chaos.
