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.
Guest;
Great Testimony. I believe there is some that God uses with the gift of faith. These signs shall follow them that believe. In My Name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with New tongues; (18). They shall take up serpents: and if they drink any deadly thing. It shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick, they shall recover. ( Mark 16:17–18.
Guest;
Pastor I think there’s a lot of overlap in the working of God’s gifts. It could be that you prayed through to victory. It definitely is a healing. It’s enough that God receives the glory. I do think it’s probably gifts of healing with a jump start of Holy Spirit faith and knowing. That God’s people are well and encouraged and that Christ is lifted up. That’s the side I fall on lol
Guest;
Oh, definitely gifts of healings involved, but my point is that it wasn’t simply a praying through to victory. Nothing was happening with prayers being resisted by the enemy, until the supernatural faith of God showed up, which led to a miraculous, instant healing.
Guest;
I was saying that Scripture to say if you believe. You can be one that the gift of healing. But the other part it is to easy confused. But it doesn’t mean picking up snakes. We have a lot in the pulpit that’s teaching false doctrine or poisonous doctrine. And if you know the Word if you hear it , it won’t hurt you. But I’m not sure that’s what that means so I’m going to erase this. Not because we don’t need the whole Bible. We do. You could explain but I be honest I know it doesn’t mean tempting God. Because The Lord told the devil when the devil was tempting The Lord Thy God. So God did not mean for us to tempt Him. I have heard in the early days of Pentecost , Of some poison in a well because they didn’t want Holiness in their town. They drank out of it and it didn’t hurt them. Now something like that. God will take care of you. Because they were not tempting God. But that whole family got saved. And told the minister what they had done. They said I want to serve a God like that. Like Paul, gathering sticks for a fire. A poisonous snake was in the wood. And it bit Paul. But he didn’t pick it up intentionally. Paul shook it off into the fire and burned it up. That’s Faith. Because He believed what God told him. The Lord had told him he was going to Rome. He took God at His Word. Slept the snake burn in the fire. If we know the spoken Word Of God. Then stand on it. You don’t have to tempt God. Just believe what He said. When I started talking about the gift of faith. I forgot it went into all these verses. Not that we don’t need to know the Word. But this wasn’t the subject. Tell me what I should do. I hate to erase Gods Word. I just can’t hardly do it. Let’s go on with our subject. I think was Christmas. But this is about Christ. We can just add the other discussion back in. Whet I’m not explaining well or the way it should be. Let’s me know. John The Baptist told some that came to him to be Baptized. He said oh he generation of vipers. Go and bring forth fruits meet for Repentance. (Matthew 3: 7-9 ). He called them vipers. You can’t get more poison than a viper. If you want to handle snakes. Got to some of the places where they are trying to kill you with their poisonous doctrine. Trying to get you to drink some of that poisonous stuff. I don’t mean to offend any one. Some of you really believe it’s right. But let me plead with you. Please Study The Word. I love you. But I want you to know the Word.
Varnel Watson
I’ve long studied systems in the church – too long some may say. I’ve observed again and again that the ones who move up the system with intent to change it, are changed by the system by the time they get into the position of authority to change it
Link Hudson
The system may weed out those who maintain the desire to change it
Varnel Watson
if you are correct Link Hudson true change in church can only happen in the margins and the periphery of the actual life of the church system #soSAD
Link Hudson
Troy Day Or some kind of supernatural move of God might change it. These are general tendencies we are talking about, not absolutes.
In our political system, Trump somehow got in. He is still constrained by the rules of the system in a lot of ways.
Varnel Watson
he got in on technicality or Russian help – he most certainly did NOT get most of the votes to brag about
Joe Absher
I’ve heard it called “special faith” and seems right to me what little i know.
Lester Sumeral used to talk about Howard Carter having it. The supernatural gift to lay ahold of God and his will. Sometimes it just happens that you know God’s will and character and believe for it.