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.
Q. 52. If God grants the grace of repentance, and we repent, believe, and receive pardon for all our sins, will we need a second work of grace, or cleansing?
Charlie Robin
Charles Page Ricky Grimsley Q. 52. If God grants the grace of repentance, and we repent, believe, and receive pardon for all our sins, will we need a second work of grace, or cleansing?
Henry Volk
It’s like the old hymn says, “There’s a highway to Heaven, none shall walk up there, but the pure in heart.”
Charles Page
The regenerate state from new birth is “pure in heart” They are ready for eternal life, heaven.
Charles Page
only God can raise a dead man (dead from original sin) to a state of life. The dead do not cooperate in this gift of new life.
Henry Volk
But that’s not sanctification.
Charles Page
Exactly
Dolores Robinson Volk
I think Sanctification is the ability to live a Holy life that only possible through the power of God.
John Ramos
Thomas Aquinas in Operating, Co-Operating, and Prevenient Grace defines justification as being “made righteous” by grace hence he writes of justification as sanctifying grace
Charlie Robin
Q. 53. Why will we need a second blessing?
A. Because of Original Sin which has infected our nature even before we have.
Charlie Robin
Henry Volk I hear 10% of all proceeds go to the Charles Page 70 AD FUND Ricky Grimsley Timothy Carter Alan N Carla Smith
Henry Volk
???
John Ramos
Hey Timothy Carter I think Charles Page is calling for his 10%
Timothy Carter
Brother Charles Page preaching on the importance of tithes in, BC 1000.
John Ramos
I’d say definitely way before Melchizedek right?
Timothy Carter
Yes, I believe this was before Melchizedek, see how young brother Charles Page is in the photo.
Ricky Grimsley
Lol. Why would the 70 AD fund need money…..all their mission was fulfilled by 70 AD?
Charlie Robin
70 people have to mail a check for $70 each in 70 hours in order to find out Henry Volk Charles Page #ThisIsAJoke
Charles Page
Charlie Robin start by contributing some rubles to make the total an even 5000
Charlie Robin
Alternatively 70 people could buy 70 copies of the book each in the next 70 hours to virtually same effect Henry Volk
Charles Page
and no stingy prayer cards w/o any money!!!
Charlie Robin
Going LIVE @ 5 its 5 o’clock somwhere
Henry Volk
That’s true! I promise a special seed faith anointing for those who buy now! Lol. Actually, I’ve updated the manuscript, so the book won’t be available for at least 24 hours.
Charles Page
I am trying to raise $5000 to buy the T.L. Lowery world outreach center and start a Pentecostal Preterist Präteritum
First I am seeking a 8000 sq ft residence for my wife and myself.
Henry Volk
Charles Page what’s my ROI on this?
Charles Page
Henry Volk that’s true there will be some residual income for you. It will be paid in rubles!
Henry Volk
Hmmmmm, ???
Charles Page
Henry Volk You will have peace and happiness and 100 fold joy!
Joseph D. Absher
Is grace here defined impetus and ability to see our sin feel remorse and come to God for pardon???
Charles Page
That would perhaps be a result of the ransom theory of atonement. A purchased atonement
Henry Volk
More or less
Joseph D. Absher
I never heard of no random theory of atonement. Wasn’t the Lamb of God slain from the foundations of the earth??? Theologians wheww!!!
Charles Page
The substitutionary theory does not require any action on our part. It is substitutionary
Henry Volk
I don’t really see what the disagreement is.
Ricky Grimsley
Its more than that
Joseph D. Absher
Yes of course, it is the manifold grace of God after all.
John Ramos
Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants agree that grace is conferred through the sacraments, “the means of grace” Means of Grace are God’s instruments by which all spiritual blessing are bestowed upon sinners
Charles Page
no, the means of grace are the works the unregenerate do to receive the grace of God. In sacraments the church is the means and in Protestants it is the unconverted who receive by decision the grace of God.
In the Bible God’s works are the means to eternal salvation.
Timothy Carter
What? Please explain.
Charles Page
What is it you don’t understand?
Then I can explain
Timothy Carter
Are you saying:
” the means of Grace” is what an unconverted person does to become converted? That somehow the work, action that the unconverted does creates a pathway for Grace to flow?
Charles Page
means of (Protestant) grace = going down to an altar, shaking the preacher’s hand, crying and weeping at an old fashion altar, repenting of your sins, saying a sinner’s prayer, accepting Jesus into your heart – it is earned regeneration through an unregenerate cooperating with God in receiving the gift of regeneration. There is no grace apart from our efforts. Wesleyanism holds that an unregenerate receives a saving grace (prevenient grace) that prevents the hindrances of original sin for the unregenerate to receive Christ’s atonement.
Sacramental regeneration is an unregenerate receiving the new birth (regeneration) through the agency of the church via a priest.
I reject both decisional regeneration, including Wesleyan regeneration and baptismal (sacramental) regeneration.
Joseph D. Absher
A couple of things here if I may, maybe my difficulty is terminology. Like, “theory of atonment” there is a theory of relativity but a law of gravity. It may be I’ve taken offense when there is none. For me, theory and atonement don’t belong in the same sentence! Also considering the definition of grace or the work of grace in the hearts of men is no small matter thus my effort to clearly define it in this particular line of thinking. The grace of God is too broad a subject for these narrow posts. Further I use grace as not just “unmerited favor” but the divine influence on the heart and character. The Eskimos have some 30? Words for snow. So I try not to “drill down’ so deep. It is sufficient for me that a man’s spirit is born again and draws life and sustenance from , prayer, fellowship, the word of God, and worship (to include tithes) from my simplistic view these are ” means of grace”
Charles Page
+so you hold to penal substitutionary atonement? anything differing is theoretical like government, example, satisfaction etc.
John Ramos
The problem here is that Charles Page does not buy into original sin, yes Adam sinned but was it transferred to all humanity in perpetuity?
John Ramos
Technically speaking, substitutionary atonement was a Catholic joke which opened the door for Thomas Aquinas’ self-Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of self-penance Henry Volk
Henry Volk
Wait what?
John Ramos
Christ punished instead of us is a subset or particular type for a true substitutionary atonement. Barth in his Doctrine of Reconciliation primarily uses PSA (without some of its Anselmian baggage) to describe the universal implications of Jesus Death and Resurrection. Specifically he calls Jesus the “Judge Judged in our place.” Henry Volk Do you want me to type slower so you can follow 🙂
Timothy Carter
Type slowly, for me please. ( laughing, slowly)
Timothy Carter
What do you mean that Substitutionary Atonement was a Catholic joke. Substitutionary Atonement is the name attributed to the atonement we have through Jesus. Jesus died as a substitute for us.
1 Pet 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness,
1 Pet 3:18
Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.
Am I missing something?
Henry Volk
It has its roots with Anselm who deviates slightly from the dominate Ransom theory of the time. However, it’s not like people were specifically talking about atonement theories at that time or trying to formulate new ones.
John Ramos
Just one thing – do you believe Christ suffered for us or Christ suffered in our place instead of us? Let’s go back to Millard Erickson and the Biblical foundation for Governmental theory of atonement http://www.theopedia.com/governmental-theory-of-atonement
Timothy Carter
As Dr. Steven Lamb would say, “Yes.” I have always thought of it as being, Christ suffered For us, as to say, He did us a favor. Also, I have felt Christ suffered instead of us. We deserve this suffering. He does not.
Timothy Carter
I do not agree with the Governmental Theory of Atonement, which says, “This [governmental atonement] view holds that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man’s sin.” Because, in Matt we hear
Jesus say,
“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” Matt 20: 28).
Hebrews 9:28 “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. . .”
Hebrews 10:10, 11,12, 14
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Timothy Carter
This leads us to the Ransom Theory of Atonement, which I believe would be a great discussion in and of itself. I will start one.
Charles Page
Joseph, this is a discussion about theories of atonement!
John Ramos
He government atonement covers multiple since virtually all sins without being the doer but the judge. Barth held the judged judge theology very highly. Christ dying in our behalf denotes Christ taking our sins, removing it from us and making us righteous (not sinners). Christ dying for us is a bit more limited in the means that in order for Christ to forgive all our sins He would have known all of our since before hand. This borders including that Christ also fore-knew and pre-decided the elect so Ricky Grimsley will immediately jump in to tell us this atonement is limited and perhaps just for a few but not for all sinners and thus Calvinistic. Government atonement escapes all Cavlinistic traps and allows Christ to die for all sin in general as Barth called it “the judged Judge” thus accepting all sinners and affirming their entire sanctification in the Spirit…
Timothy Carter
I have not seen Government Atonement like this before. My veiw has been as I stated about. Now, I think maybe, I should read more about it.
Charles Page
Universalism
Ricky Grimsley
Since when am i a Calvinist. Lol b
Charles Page
I told on you
Peter Ciple
The Holy Spirit of God! https://www.facebook.com/334435539991308/photos/a.334437783324417.58385.334435539991308/659194687515390/?type=3&theater
Ricky Grimsley
I lean towards open-theism not calvinism.
Charles Page
Open theism is moderated Calvinism -little difference
Varnel Watson
Open theism and hyper calivinism are the extremes of one and the same ol thing Charles Page is right for once since 70 AD