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.
Philip Williams
Yes, stood on its head to say the very opposite of what it does say. It doesn’t say, “and then all Israel will be saved” but “in this way all Israel will be saved.” What way is Paul referring to? He is talking about the all the Gentiles coming into Israel.
Israel was not like the Gentile nations. Membership in the Old Covenant was not by natural birth but by circumcision. Can’t everyone see that by that strange rite God is saying, “No indeed! That’s not how you become a member of Israel!”
Even so, the promises are entirely for the Israel of God. These are from Gentiles brought into the 12 tribes through Jesus and the Apostles who he appointed over the 12 tribes that are being saved. We see them in Rev 7 and in Rev 14 standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion, where the gospel will go out to all nations.
Robert Erwine
strange rite ? more like bizarre
Philip Williams
Robert Erwine ‘‘twas indeed. And Jews of the Hellenistic era living among Greeks endured scorn.
Robert Erwine
it has pagan roots , nowhere would God want people to mutilate their genitals to prove convent with a good God . the only reason the practice is accepted in America is off of Victorian era junk science .
Philip Williams
Robert Erwine if you aren’t a believer in the Bible, aren’t you in the wrong forum?
Robert Erwine
whoa how do you go from that to calling me an unbeliever ?
Philip Williams
Robert Erwine anyone who claims pagan roots for the Bible has rejected the faith.
Robert Erwine
I said that practice, don’t get it twisted
Philip Williams
Robert Erwine that practice was implemented by God when he called Abraham!
Robert Erwine
seems a very odd thing of the God of the universe to request as that particular practice was done by pagan sex cults prior to that request , thats all I was saying.
Philip Williams
Robert Erwine Where did you learn such nonsense?
Robert Erwine
how is it nonsense , this historical fact , do you think Abraham invented it on God’s command ?
Philip Williams
Abraham did not invent it. God commanded it:
“Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”” Genesis 17:9-14
John Crilly
Philip Williams The key to this discussion are this questions….Who is Israel? Who are Gods chosen people ? Who are the heirs according to the promises? What is a natural Jew and who are the spiritual Jew? Who are the children of God? And who are those God calls the “remnant”
To start Heb:8:13…Gal:3:1-29 and there are many more scriptures to show the answers to are questions. Rom:11:7-36. The key is to find out who are the remnant and who are Abrahams seed.
Philip Williams
John Crilly
Very easy. Those who trust in Abraham’s God are the children of the Promise. The other seed do not share in the Promise.
Jim Price
” How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his methods.” Rom. 11:33 NLT If we start out with this disclaimer from Paul, it is easier to understand the passage. Paul is trying to blend together two periods of history and two cultures and get two kinds of people to hear and understand what neither one wants to hear. Here he is talking about units of people not individuals. Secondly he is facing the difficulty that we all have and that is finding the right language to convey new thoughts and understanding.
Varnel Watson
Jim Price Billy Monroe Poff Philip Williams where do we see this in the Scriptures? Romans or Revelation ?
Jim Price
I would say that both Rom. and Rev.,have very difficult passages to comprehend. Both are trying to grasp the collision of two worlds, two major thrusts of God. One might think of them as the thunderstorms of history, the ushering out of the old the entering of the new.
RichardAnna Boyce
Romans 11:28-36
What follows from vv 28-32 summarizes not only vv 1-27 but also the entire content of chaps. 9-11. When Israel rejected the gospel (9:30-10:21; 11:7,11; 1 Thess 2:14-16) the nation became enemies of God, causing Him to reject them (9:6-29; 10:16-21; 11:1-24:255). In God’s sovereign plan this occurred for the sake of Gentile salvation (11:11-15). Nevertheless, though God has turned to the Gentiles, He does not hate, nor has He fully rejected the Israelites. Concerning the election they are still His chosen people (though temporarily set aside), and are therefore still beloved for the sake of the fathers. God’s special love for the elect is an outgrowth of His love for the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; cf. v 16) and the promises He made to them (Ex 2:24; Deut 7:7-8).
God explains that His free choice of election is based on His gifts (that which is freely given) and callings (“invitation to experience a special privilege,”). These are irrevocable. Though the term irrevocable appears at the end of the English sentence, Paul emphasizes this act of God by placing it at the beginning of the Greek sentence. Paul emphatically believes that God will never renege on any promise to Israel.
11:30-32. Paul now explains how God’s electing love for Israel in vv 28-29 is further expressed in vv 30-32. As Gentiles (indicated by you; cf. v 12) were once disobedient to God (perhaps thinking of 1:18-32), they have now obtained mercy because of Jewish disobedience (perhaps thinking of 2:1-3:8). Yet because God showed mercy to undeserving Gentiles (you) after the Jews rejected Christ, undeserving Israel (they) will likewise receive mercy and believe in Christ at some point in the future (cf. vv 23,26-27). Israel’s disobedience is preparing them to be ready and willing to receive mercy when God again turns to them in the Tribulation period that completes Daniel’s 70 th week prophecy (9:24-27; cf. Rom 9:26). Hence, at the end God levels the playing field, having committed Jew and Gentiles (i.e., them all) to disobedience so that mercy can come equally to all.
11:33-36. The revelation of God’s purposes and plans (probably revealed in chaps. 1-11) causes the apostle to break out in an emotional doxology (hymn) of praise to God. Paul’s praise includes four elements, followed by two quotations, which elevate God to a level unimaginable to the feeble human mind. First, God’s riches (recalls His mercy of 2:4; 9:23; 10:12; 11:12) encompass wisdom and knowledge. The phrase wisdom and knowledge of God seems to be related to God’s incredible plan delineated in Romans to save both Jews and Gentiles. God’s unique judgments and ways of dealing with humanity show that total comprehension is humanly impossible (cf. Job 42:3; Ps 147:5; Isa 40:28; 2 Bar 14:8-9).
Thinking of God’s unfathomable ways (v 33) causes Paul to employ quotations from Isa 40:13 and Job 41:11. This shows how no one has ever been able to know “the mind of the LORD…become His counselor,” or place Him in a position of debt to humanity. God’s dealings with humanity are by grace. Paul concludes that no one has the right to demand anything from God, because He is the source (i.e., out of Him), sustainer (i.e., through Him) and the goal (i.e., to Him) of all things (cf. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17). Therefore, after asking the hard questions of life, the Christian’s attitude should be that of Paul’s: to God be the glory forever.
Isara Mo
Are names written in the Book of Lamb by inheritance or confession of the Lamb?
Varnel Watson
Billy Monroe Poff Tom Steele Philip Williams Alan Smith Hagee argues that “the Old Covenant is not dead” (p. 158). In fact, “Scripture plainly indicates that the church (spiritual Israel) and national Israel exist side by side, and neither replaces the other — ever!” (p. 146, emph. his). “Replacement theology advances the concept that the Old Covenant, or Old Testament, has been replaced by the New Testament” (p. 158).
These assertions require us to believe that Jews are saved today without express faith in Christ — in that they are under the God-ordained, continuing old covenant standards. But not even this helps the Jews much since they do not have a temple in order to carry out the requirements of the old covenant!
Gary Micheal Epping
John Hagee can say ‘the old covenant is not dead’ or whatever else he wants to say, but what we need to know is what Jesus says in JOHN 14:6, which fully answers the salvation issue, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” That goes goes for Jew, Gentile, and all of mankind after the the time of Christ’s resurrection.
Varnel Watson
SO Gary Micheal Epping Philip Williams all Israel IS saved now as we speak or WILL be saved – if so WHEN about?
Philip Williams
All Israel will be saved when the full number of Gentiles has come in to God’s Israel.
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams wouldnt it be upon MESSIAH ?
Philip Williams
Troy Day ??
Varnel Watson
Israel recognizing the true Messiah – they cannot just be saved without having a Messiah save them
Philip Williams
The Messiah is the King of Israel. Impossible to be of Israel and not recognize Israel’s king.
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams Hagee seems to be involving the russians in his Messianic narrative http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/ezekiel-war-the-russians-are-coming/
Varnel Watson
Israel uncovers road Jesus walked from Pool of Siloam. https://www.foxnews.com/science/israel-road-jesus-temple-ancient-jerusalem
admit that I am not as solid as I once was concerning “Israelicentric” Eschatology. In other words, I’m not as convinced as I once was that there even has to be a reconstituted Jewish State in order for Christ to return. While I reject the term “replacement theology”, you might label me an adherent to “FULFILLMENT theology”.
However, geopolitically I support the state of Israel 100%. It is an island of normalcy in a sea of perversion. One of the reasons I support Israel is because of the access tourists and researchers have to Biblical sights. There is so much there archeologically that validates the claims of the Bible, and Israel protects these treasures. I can only imagine what an ISIS type regime would do if they took power in “Greater Liberated Palestine”. I fear that the fate that befell the 2000-year-old Buddha statues would befall most archeological evidence in Israel if that happened.