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;
Fantasy is much different than lying and comparing it to the veneration of saints is misplaced. If you’re unsure about this, contemplate the fantasy from J.R. Token and C.S. Lewis.
Guest;
Don Qualls There is a difference between reading children a fantasy story about the three little pigs, with the children knowing it is a story, and convincing them that a real magic fat man will give them presents, only if they behave. The parents have the kids convinced that it is real.
Guest;
My thoughts are this…your first comments are somewhat vitriol. While I didn’t teach my children about Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. I don’t condemn those who do and you also shouldn’t condemn those that do…it is a parents choice…and the same way you can choose without condemnation is the same for the parents you strive to convince not to tell the stories to. You are coming off very judgmental. Simple present the evidence and let people decide for themselves. Your readers will dismiss a judgmental attitude out-of-hand, and dismiss your attempt to change their minds.
Guest;
Don Qualls if it’s lying it’s wrong. If it is not lying, why should parents feel condemned?
Guest;
Is it okay to lie to children because they lack a filter to discern truth from falsehood and are easily deceived?
Guest;
You are missing the point about parental choice and fantasy. If you would like to discuss these points, I’m willing to discuss this further with you. If you are going down the same path, I’m not willing to further this conversation.
Guest;
Don Qualls I do not see how this is a discussion about fantasy. It is about the inconsistency between opposing prayer to saints and participating in activities that are (skewed) veneration-of-a-saint practices, and also a discussion about parents deceiving their own children.
Guest;
Once again, it is not deception. Also, it is not praying to a saint. It is fantasy. Fantasy literature is literature set in an imaginary universe, often but not always without any locations, events, or people from the real world. Magic, the supernatural and magical creatures are common in many of these imaginary worlds. If you think about it…the Santa Clause and all other names you mentioned are fantasy.
Guest;
Don Qualls Reread my post. I am opposing presenting Santa Claus to children as a fantasy story in this post. That is another discussion, one that Tom Steele would likely want to discuss in his thread.
My concern is with parents intentionally deceiving their children into thinking Santa Claus really does fly around the world in a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer, stuffing all the toys for all the children around the world into a sack he can carry over his shoulder.
Santa is presented as practically omniscient, knowing everything the child does bad, and presents are given on how good the child has been.
Guest;
It’s ripe for it. Some movie maker out there has just got to come up with a Santa horror movie that makes it big. He can ruin Santa as a cultural icon like It did for clowns. Probably, more Americans think of clowns as creepy than as fun entertainment for children.
I can just imagine the gruff, scarey voice for the trailer,
“He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when your awake. He’s watching.” — a magic Santa busting into people’s houses with a chain saw or knife or something like that. If a series of those became as popular as Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street used to be, Santa could become a creepy thing to kids like clowns are.
Guest;
The whole character of ‘Santa Claus’ is based on a ‘Saint’, not on some made-up fantasy character like Gandalf the Grey in the Lord of the Rings.
Santa is ‘saint’ in Spanish, but that is the female form of the title.
Apparently, the term is derived from Saint Nicholas in Dutch tradition (aka; Sinta Klaus in another European dialect) it’s a convoluted story of etymology, but the fact is that the person of Santa Claus is actually based on a ‘Saint’ of the Roman Catholic variety and is not in any way, shape, or form, an invention of fantasy, therefore the objection posed above is a valid one.
Guest;
WHY only Pentecostal parents? Just another 5-o post?
Guest;
We didn’t do santa with my daughter for that very reason. Being, it’s fake. What I told her was something along the lines of “We give gifts on Christmas, to each other and those less fortunate, because it’s Jesus birthday. And he’s in heaven.
Jesus is the gift of heaven. Given for all men. That is the meaning of Christmas. And the best thing a man can do is give himself back to God. By faith in Jesus Christ. The Saviour
Guest;
Ricky Grimsley told youth group santa was dead 🙂
Guest;
We never did Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. in our family, and focused on the Incarnation. When the kids were little, they made up the name and laughed at Santa “Claws.”
Guest;
Uh-huh
Guest;
MAY BE just maybe Link Hudson is somehow proposing children write letters to Jesus?
Guest;
I dont know for sure. This may be more cultural.
Guest;
Any who does this is not a pentecostal
Tim Anderson
Interesting Question. Obviously the places where people gather to have “church” with all the various activities. It was many diverse places. Scripture in N.T. shows proclaiming the gospel and the message of repentance went on in may areas. Many of the areas had no Altarr. When the church met in homes as they still do, do you think they had or should have today an Alter?
Not wanting to start an endless debate – but seems like a good subject of discussion for some Spirit- filled believers. BTW. – When I received Christ in 1977, it was because I was invited to come and pray at the Altar. So glad I did.
Daniel J Hesse
St. Troy, I hope?
Varnel Watson
never been to a hillsong church Maybe Link Hudson can shed some light For me personally, when the power is LOST you’ve got to darken the stage with some smoke and make it look like something is still present in the church hows -question remains WHAT
Link Hudson
Never been to fill ong. I have been to a couple of churches that use black lights or smoke machines.
Link Hudson
Do you think smoke machines are for churches that don’t have real glory clouds?
Louise Cummings
That is not ok to pray to saints. Seems like I have heard that before. Nothing But the Blood Of Jesus can save you. And you have to believe that He is The Son Of God. And Died and shed His Blood for our sins. He is the one to pray to and ask forgiveness.
Varnel Watson
I spoke on the topic just recently It USED to be that revivalists and healing preachers accented on God in the meetings and His presence providing miracles. This time is gone and the power is long lost Instead we have better sound, better acting, lighting even better liturgical content in the service BUT the POWER aint there no more and we are just going through the motions playing church