This is a long and sometimes rambling account of my investigation into the creation account, specifically with regard to the word “Boker” or morning. It is one of the most fascinating concepts I have ever discovered with regard to the Torah and the Hebrew language. The question is, do the ideas contained within hold up to scrutiny?
I happened upon this thought whilst researching the creation account. I don’t know if it’s original or has been discussed before, but if anyone is familiar with this idea, can you point me towards an analysis (if such a thing exists)?
After researching their etymology, the words Erev and Boker (or Voker) seem to have dual meanings, and thus could be used to gain further insight into the text. The commonly accepted literal translation of the phrase “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom echad” reads “And it was evening and it was morning, one day”.
I was initially interested in the word “boker” and why it has the same root as “bakar” or cattle. This led to me discovering that “boker” fundamentally means “splitting” or “cleaving”.
I was excited but not surprised to find that upon researching the word “Erev” that it held the opposite connotations, ideas of mixture or gathering.
Leaving aside discussion over the word “Yom“, literally meaning day for the moment (I have other theories about that), it is highly interesting to then read the verses in this new light (if you’ll pardon the pun).
“And it was unified, and it was split, day one” obviously makes perfect sense with regard to day one and holds interesting implications for the subsequent days.
The idea that the creation can be reconciled scientifically by a series of “splitting of states” is highly fascinating for me. This also resonates with the idea (as stated in the Shema) of God being “One” – perhaps this reality is just the result of the splitting of that “one” into smaller discrete parts?
Edit: I have recently found an independent version of a similar theory in the book “The Science of God” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He describes the same ideas (which he attributes to Nachmanides), but instead relates ‘erev’ to mixture as in disorder or chaos. And to ‘boker’ he ascribes the idea of order (from bikoret-orderly, able to be observed). However he still seems to have missed the fundamental idea of ‘splitting’ which in my opinion is the key to unlocking the whole thing.
So to clarify the question: Has anyone written an analysis of Genesis 1 through the lens of these alternate meanings of ‘erev’ and ‘boker’? Is mine a plausible theory? Why or why not?
Edit 2: I just thought of another key argument which (again very simply but elegantly) supports my claims. In conversation with AbuMunirIbnIbrahim he challenged me on the meaning of בָּקָר, saying there is no evidence of linkage with the idea of splitting or division. I answered him thusly:
“In the case of בָּקַע and בָּקָר, however there is a clear linkage, which is discernible from one key translation of the root word:”בְּקַר: to plough, to break forth, to inspect. The Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon translated by Friedrich Wilhelm states that the word בָּקָר is named for its purpose: of ploughing. This shows an undeniable link. Additionally there is also a second link which is that of the cloven hoof, which is one of the fundamental aspects of Kashrut.”
Coincidentally the other defining feature of a Kosher animal is that it is ruminant, ie. It has a divided or split stomach relative to other mammals. So both aspects of Kashrut involve the idea of splitting or division.
However, his reference to Ezekiel 34:12 really got me thinking…
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are separated, so will I seek out My sheep; and I will deliver them out of all places whither they have been scattered in the day of clouds and thick darkness.
Look at this verse closely. “his sheep that are separated”. It hit me that this a fundamental characteristic of “בָּקָר” or cattle:- to flock or herd. A single animal from a flock represents the division of a whole into smaller discrete parts. Again this consistent use of language resonates perfectly and works with everything in its context. Sheep separating from the flock. The flock separating from the shepherd. Man separating from God. This verse (intentionally or not) uses the three letter root בקר twice and is directly concerned with the idea of unification (the flock) and divison (the scattering) and the subsequent reunification.
Edit 3: After some more research I am convinced that the two letter root “בק” literally means divide or split. Further, I am starting to think that the two letter root forms a fundamental part of the 3 letter root (which I have now subsequently learned is also a major part of Kabalistic thought). http://www.2letterlookup.com/ is a very useful tool in efficiently searching for patterns in the letter combinations and in the brief time I’ve been using it, I’ve seen some remarkable results.
In addition to the words listed above, I started looking for 3 letter root words with בק at the end (letters 2 and 3). Again I found multiple references to the idea of splitting, but one in particular stood out:
-Abaq (אָבַק or אָבָק) according to Gesenius means “fine dust” or “light particles” His conjecture as to the etymology reads:
“אָבַק a root not used in Kal, which I suppose to have had the force of to pound, to make small, from the onomatopoetic syllable בק, בך, פג, פק, which, as well as דך, דק (see דָּקַק, דָּכַךְ ), had the force of pounding; comp. בָּכָה to drop, to distil;”
The feminine form of the word also means powder. Clearly the idea of dust or powder as small particles removed from a larger whole again demonstrate exactly the same concept.
But this isn’t where it ends- it gets far more interesting. Genesis Chap. 32 recounts the story of Yaakov wrestling with the angel. The story often seems to be making cryptic allusions. First, Yaakov and his family crossed the ford of Yabok (יבק) – a name which appears to be highly symbolic. Then they wrestled (וַיֵּאָבֵק) the etymology again goes back to dust.
However, Rashi has a different interpretation attributing the word to an Aramaic expression found in the Talmud: דָּאִבִיקוּ. This is derivative of the 3 letter root דבק, meaning adhere, glue or impinge. Again the word references the concept of unification and division, since glue binds two discrete objects together.
I realise that this is moving away somewhat from a hermeneutic question, but I think it needs to be discussed. Either way I have realised that the Hebrew language is so much more complex and ingenious than I ever realised.
Varnel Watson
Peter Christian Timothy Carter It has been done before. What do you have to add to their 4 full hours of arguments?
Ricky Grimsley
I think the best quote of the debate is by james white. “The only consistent Arminian is an open-theist”. It 100% true IMO
Peter Christian
Unless ye are born again ye will not see the kingdom of God
Charles Page
Neither enter also
Charles Page
You have to be born again to see and enter into the sanctified life
Timothy Carter
I don’t have 4 hours to give to this issue, right now.
Varnel Watson
Peter Christian Bro. Timothy knows I am not too photogenic for radio and I doubt Ricky Grimsley and Tony Conger are dying to listen to me either but you can definitely invite Charles Page from the live @ 5 radio broadcast
Varnel Watson
Walter Polasik Ricky Grimsley This is the video (or one of many of that debate they did several times) where they talked for hours and could not get ahead of each other. Neil Konitshek Are you referring to Brownsville and the Emma angel flying around or something else related to that?
Neil Konitshek
Emma and the false angel was not Michael Brown. It was Todd Bentley. Michael Brown was a big part of the Brownsville false arrival in Pensacola Florida. He refuses to repent of his involvement.
Varnel Watson
false arrival ? Give us a source to learn more
Neil Konitshek
Troy Day sorry, false REVIVAL
Varnel Watson
oh ok – did you read my question about the tapes?
Neil Konitshek
Troy Day no I don’t see it
Friar Rodney Burnap
Yes vessels of wrath prepared beforehand…we are all in vessels of wrath…prepared beforehand for destruction….For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…but it says in 1 Corinthians 15: 51-56 Because I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, my vessel of wrath will be done away with and I will be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, my body of death will be changed for a body of immortality…
When the perishable has been clothed with imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallow ed up in victory.
Friar Rodney Burnap
Don’t you think instead of debating they should have in the market place sharing there faith with the unsaved?
Varnel Watson
Friar Do you believe in free will?
Friar Rodney Burnap
Whosoever Luke 14:33 KJV
Varnel Watson
Are pelegian like Walter Polasik too?
Friar Rodney Burnap
No I am a believer in the Way of Christ…Hodos!
Varnel Watson
Faith alone? Or faith + works
Friar Rodney Burnap
I am not a Moral Government Theology person…I am a original sin kind of person…
Varnel Watson
How is then original sin dealt with in your theology ?
Friar Rodney Burnap
I am saved by faith not of works…but to do good works …James 2:14-26
Varnel Watson
good man with a good position Street Preacherz
Street Preacherz
I’m teachable. Jesus said the gospel is like a man that finds a treasure in a field. When he finds it he sell everything for it. I pray God give us field. But it’s never that easy. It’s about having your family at your side when you pass from this life to the next. And leaving them with the wonder of it all. How God calls and uses a man is his business
Walter Polasik
Troy Day: James White will throw more theological lingo at you than a pancake has batter! (“Pelagian”) The some of those Reformed guys talk, you need a doctorate just to UNDERSTAND them! If you really want to get into the Calvinism/Arminian debate (I HAVE) you can go to various FB pages that focus on exclusively that. To be specific, I would characterize myself more as “semi-pelagian” in that I don’t discount the Bible’s teaching of predestination but I also hold to free will as God-given and Bible taught. I really don’t know why Michael Brown had such a tough time with James White. I certainly wouldn’t. Calvinism doesn’t believe in man’s free will, and what it means by predestination is quite simply a fatalistic, pre-scripted reality where every human action has already been fore-ordained by God to the point where God is literally responsible for every rape and every murder ever committed by any person. Now, that may seem like a tall stretch of theology but really, it’s not. When you come right down to it, Calvinists like James White will admit that’s what Calvinism is. I’ve heard Calvinists say that in heaven we’ll be glorifying God for all of the people burning in hell for all eternity. And what am I saying? I’m saying that these people have the cajones to delve into things they have absolutely no idea about, much like the Jehovah’s Witnesses when they begin to rank the godhead (“The Father is supreme, the Son is a lesser god and the Holy Spirit is merely the force Jehovah uses”). Absolutely mind-boggling that anyone would dare to do that. And Calvinism uses Scripture just as one-sidedly as the cults do! It avoids all of the passages that not only question a Calvinist perspective or give it pause but Scripture which outright denies it (like the Calvinist position of OSAS which Scripture CLEARLY denies).
Michael Hazlewood
They are both wrong Romans 3:4 KJB
Varnel Watson
Walter Polasik in theology less words is more theology Any one can blah blah for hours Very few can mace sound theological sense I have to agree with Michael Hazlewood on this one. To me the whole debate was a wrigged
Walter Polasik
Troy Day: I have yet to listen to it but will.
Varnel Watson
Walter Polasik good time to listen to it then