Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
Though prayer doesn’t change God’s mind or God’s purposes, prayer does change something- It changes us.
Chuck Smith
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
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.
Anonymous
It changes us as it bends our will to do His.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams well Ricky Grimsley says it changes the mind of GOD
Anonymous
Troy Day God Forbid.
Anonymous
Troy Day according to the Bible it does. Prayer either changes things or it doesn’t. They can’t both be true. Let’s use our brains here.
Anonymous
Ricky Grimsley I dont think Kyle Williams would agree
Anonymous
Kyle Williams it appears that your mind isn’t free. It’s been captured by pagan fatalism. If you repent, Jesus will set you free.
Anonymous
Philip Williams fatalism? Opposition to open theism in favor of Classical (Catholic) theism, which confesses the impassability of the Triune God is now fatalism?
Okay, I’m ready to hear your logic behind such a bold statement…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams so you don’t believe that God made us in his own image??
Anonymous
Philip Williams WHAT pagan fatalism is Kyle Williams captured in?
Anonymous
Philip Williams of course I do…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams then God is not impassible. He has emotions. He also changes his mind based on what we do.
Anonymous
Troy Day dunno, Calvinism??
Anonymous
Philip Williams that is near blasphemy…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams that’s a wonderful reply.
Anonymous
Philip Williams it’s as polite as I can be about it and every bit as astute as is your presumption that the Imago Dei makes the Triune God mutable and therefore subject to fickle emotions…
Of God and of the Holy Trinity, Section 1: The Lord our God is but one only living, and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being, and perfection, whose Essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, Almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable, and most righteous will, for his own glory. Chapter 2. LBCF
Anonymous
Kyle Williams here I must quote Wesley’s remark to George Whitefield, “your “God” is my Devil!” He made Alex Murdagh in his image. The best criminals and despots show no emotion as they murder and torture. But my God, the one in the Bible, has compassion on his children but anger towards those who abuse them. These aren’t fickle emotions but righteous and reasonable.
Anonymous
Philip Williams emotions are inherently fickle…
Anonymous
Philip Williams process theology damns souls, and I pray Wesley repented of it, the liberal that he was.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams did Calvin repented of killing Servetus ?
Anonymous
Troy Day Calvin didn’t “kill” Servetes. Calvin wasn’t even in Geneva when Servetes was tried and subsequently condemned according to the law of the land, for injurious heresy and blasphemy.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams A few have questioned my claim that Calvin was responsible for Michael Servetus’ murder. One person argued that Calvin actually tried to stop his execution.
It’s true that Calvin didn’t want Servetus burned alive. He advocated for him to be beheaded. But there’s no reputable Calvin scholar I know of who denies Calvin wanted him executed.
Calvin himself had told his colleague Farel that if Servetus ever returned to Geneva, he’d “never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” After the burning, Calvin said, “Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.” Elsewhere Calvin said, “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.”
Even Calvin’s staunchest defenders (such as B. B. Warfield) grant that Calvin was ultimately responsible for Servetus’ death. They simply minimize his culpability by saying he was “a man of his times.”
I regard this response to be very weak. Jesus and the early Christians lived in very violent times yet refused to conform to them. And there were many Christians during Calvin’s time (the 16th century) who argued that the use of violence is inconsistent with the teachings of the New Testament – including Calvin’s former friend Sebastian Castellio and all the early Anabaptists. Not only this, but by most accounts, Calvin’s enthusiasm for the use of force to uphold what he regarded as right doctrine and behavior went far beyond most other religious leaders of his time – including, very often, his own Geneva council.
Anonymous
Jesus said that it was the scriptures, the writings of Moses, and the prophets that testified of him. He often appealed to the authority of the scriptures when teaching his disciples, answering the challenges of the scribes and Pharisees and even when battling the devil head on. Today, Christians still have the same scriptures Jesus used. In addition, we have the words and works of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. We also have the Acts and letters of the apostles. These writings make up the 27 books of the New Testament. None of the books were produced after the era of the Apostles. Church councils were a necessary part of church history clarifying what Christians believed based upon these inspired and authoritative writings of Holy Scripture. Yet traditions and creeds are not equal in authority to the words of Christ and His apostles recorded in the holy scriptures themselves.
Anonymous
well Philip Williams Prayer either changes things or it doesn’t. They can’t both be true. – they actually can Ricky Grimsley I do know of some prayers that change NOTHING and Link Hudson has expressed the same about sinners prayer
Anonymous
Troy Day Jesus taught us to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Anonymous
Troy Day Prayers need to be prayed in faith.
Anonymous
Link Hudson how does this make sense? John Mushenhouse
Anonymous
Troy Day Here is an example. James 1.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Anonymous
Link Hudson what about ye of little faith ?
Anonymous
Troy Day Is that a complement?
Anonymous
Link Hudson that you are of little faith ?
Anonymous
Why the personal attacks and character assassination?
Anonymous
Link Hudson I was simply asking you to clarify your question
you said
Is that a complement?
I asked if you were referring to
you are of little faith ? or something else
Anonymous
Kyle Williams Duane L Burgess Philip Williams Oscar Valdez Brett Dobbs