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
good post by Ray E Horton after the samename book by William DeArteaga Hope to be similar in content IF you have not read the book YET you NEED to purchase it TODAY https://www.amazon.com/Quenching-Spirit-Discover-Charasmatic-controversy/dp/0884194329
William DeArteaga
Thank you
Varnel Watson
In recent years, several respected Christian authors and teachers have come against beliefs and practices of charismatics, the world’s fastest growing Christian group. Now updated and revised, Quenching the Spirit gives the most coherent, well-documented response to date.With a brand-new chapter based on Han Hanegraaff and the CRI, and exciting new information, author William DeArteaga shows why the greatest threat to a move of the Spirit may lie within the church itself. Taking an honest look at the merits and mishaps of the charismatic renewal, DeArteaga answers your questions-whether you are suspicious of charismatics or you are one of them. Discover the real Spirit behind the charismatic controversy! https://www.amazon.com/Quenching-Spirit-Discover-Charasmatic-controversy/dp/0884194329
Every once in a while a book comes along that rocks your world. Quenching the Spirit did that for this practicing Continuationist.
This is a book that all Christians who have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives and have seen the reality of the gifts of the Spirit in the world today would benefit from reading. It would also benefit those who are “on the fence” when it comes to the question, “Are the gifts of the Spirit for today?” Cessationists could benefit from it as well if they have an open mind.
The book is well written, well researched and well argued. It brings a lot of insight and understanding as to how so many within the Evangelical world today have ended up subscribing to the disastrous and false doctrine of cessationism. Not only that, the author also shows how destructive this pernicious doctrine has been, both in the church and the work of the Spirit, but also to the unbelieving world we find ourselves living in today. Cessationism has encouraged and contributed to the rise of the secular humanism we see in Europe and even the Neo-Atheism plaguing the Western world today.
DeArteaga takes the reader on a journey through church history, highlighting the various doctrines, sundry movements, and the major players that have contributed and influenced the different camps and their views in the continuationism/cessationism debate. Unlike some books on Christian history, this one kept my attention from start to finish.
I was especially thrilled to hear of some of the important preachers and contributors who influenced the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, people that evangelical historians tend to ignore, downplay, or misrepresent in their recounting of history.
And I especially enjoyed his emphasis that one of the biggest problems in the church today is Pharisaism. I have seen this repeatedly. It amazes me how hard we are on the Pharisees of Jesus day, yet we are so blind to the many ways in which we Evangelicals and Fundamentalists act like them today.
DeArtenga also makes the case that many evangelicals today have moved away from faith-expectancy to an overemphasis on faith-doctrine. He shows how some of the secular philosophies have influenced the church and her doctrine. He even touched on quantum physics which surprised and delighted me.
He also (respectfully) challenged the three most vocal critics of the Charismatics / Pentecostals in recent history – John MacArthur, Hank Hanegraaff, and Dave Hunt. He shows how unfair their hostile criticisms are and how sloppy they are in their books and materials and radio programs when representing the views, and claims, and the positions of their doctrinal opponents. I almost feel embarrassed for these three popular authors. I feel especially sad for those that subscribe to their claims without even a salt-sized grain of doubt or skepticism.
In closing, this book helped clarify and bring understanding to this subject matter on levels I hadn’t anticipated. I am forever grateful to the author for his contribution to the Body of Christ and the efforts he went through to produce this wonderful book. I can’t recommend it enough!!
My biggest regret about this book is that I didn’t read it sooner! This book is an effective theological defense of the revivals of the 1990s which attracted so much (negative)attention from heresy-hunters such as John MacArthur and the self-styled “Bible Answer Man,” Hank Hanegraaff.
DeArteaga has several important insights in this book. Perhaps the most important is his demonstration that Calvin’s theology of cessationism (that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer operative in since the New Testament was completed) led to widespread disbelief and the rejection of Christianity that is in evidence in Europe today. America was spared this deadening effect of Calvinism to some extent because it became a refuge from non-Calvinist Christians fleeing Europe: Quakers, Mennonites, Pietists and the like.
Calvin’s cessationism was intensified by the 19th-century Irishman John Darby, whose ideas were picked up in the Scofield Bible. Due to the influence of this Bible, a century of fundamentalists believed that any healing or miraculous activity was of the devil, which is DeArteaga’s definition of Phariseeism: ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil.
Ray E Horton
Troy Day What a wonderful review of brother Bill’s work.
Varnel Watson
Ray E Horton yes indeed – what a GREAT book
Ray E Horton
Troy Day Even though I am behind iny reading by about 20 books that I want to read, that review inspired me to order it.
Varnel Watson
Ray E Horton YES time for all Pentecostals to read it