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
staying away from the HYPER grace baptist movement Link Hudson Joe Absher we are asking HOW much grace is needed for salvation? Is any and ALL grace saving? What follows next…
Link Hudson
Did I ask that?
Link Hudson
I would not say all grace is saving. If miracles are done by grace, didn’t Judas work miracles?
I remember reading parts of Jonathan Edwards book on religious affections. He described things as ‘truly gracious’ or not. As I recall he believed Saul’s sorrow wasnot truly gracious. It seems he associated grace with salvation, too stronly in my opinion. In Calvinist lingo, even, there is ‘common grace’ not necessarily leading to salvation.
Aberdeen Chan
https://www.facebook.com/notes/aberdeen-chan/testimony-of-lindsay-lim-new-creation-church/10160657570795207/
Ray E Horton
Grace should be seen “hyper.” Hyper grace = abundant grace. 2 Cor 4:15, “For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.” Acts 4:33 (NASB), “And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.” “Abundant” here is Gr. “pleonazō” Strong G4121 where “superabound” is one of the meanings – sounds like “hyper” to me. God’s grace is “hyper-grace.” By comparison, liberal churches that preach or allow license or Universalism have a counterfeit grace.
Varnel Watson
Ray E Horton there is a whole hyper grace movement that disagrees Aberdeen Chan cant see the link What is it about? Link Hudson the question was asked many moons ago by Ermar Reyes Luna
Aberdeen Chan
I just turn it to public. Please try again.
Link Hudson
The use of tags was easily misinterpreted.
Varnel Watson
Grace lifted you or grace tagged you?
Varnel Watson
same as FREE grace RichardAnna Boyce Not much difference At least not theological difference Not really https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiTtBbmycMQ&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1a73eZr0kxuM9Jzsc9pphyLSAG9gPF16dN_1sQcOYejJv84kqJl6_Tp7o
RichardAnna Boyce
The Hyper Grace that pastor Ken Legg teaches is the same as Free Grace that i teach, and Ken is my pastor when i visit my family on Gold Coast Australia. It is Biblical Rom 5:20 huperperisseuo (grace abounded much more) and if you dont teach hypergrace in your church then you are in trouble as your grace wont be sufficient to cover the sin that abounds in your church, as in Rom 5:20. It is slightly different to the hyper grace that Joseph Prince is labelled with, as JP’s HG doesnt include Reward Theology being the accountability for sanctification in a believer’s life. This difference is outlined in IS JOSEPH PRINCE FREE GRACE attached next so you can read and inform the group please.
Louise Cummings
I will take what the Bible says. By Grace, through Faith we are saved. Thank
Louise Cummings
The Bible does say. Where sin abounds. Grace does much more abound.
Lyndsey Dunn
Hyper! Unorthodox teaching of getting everything possible from God at initial believing with no need for repentance, holy living, sanctification or discipleship. Teaches that all you do is mentally change your mind believing who Jesus is and that Jesus does it all with no responsibility falling on yourself. Teaches that you don’t need any of the disciplines of the faith like tithing, fasting, giving, serving, praying, and its logic certainly does not allow for indwelling and baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is a false teaching! Even satan believes. Scripturally, You need repentance and faith in action. Faith in action is the key to all the benefits of grace. You can’t preach just one part of all the gospel leaving everything else out. Orthodox teaching preaches grace and faith, and holiness, and repentance, and all of scriptural guidance for all parts of life. To preach faith and not grace is hyper faith. We could pick any part of the gospel and emphasize it to the point that it distorts the whole picture. Let’s preach a balanced word with all the promises and direction of God. In other words the true gospel. Grace is not a person, Jesus is a person, the Holy Spirit is a person, God is a Person. Why waste time on esoterical teachings that have to be created and otherwise would never be understood from a direct reading of scripture. These abstruse heresies deter from the intended message of the Gospel that changes lives and saves us and removes our sin empowering us to live righteous lives following the character of Jesus. By teaching only the grace aspect of God you leave out all the other truths making the gospel out to be partially true and ultimately a lie.
Varnel Watson
TRUE Lyndsey Dunn grace is neither free nor hyper Calvinists dont think any repentance is needed cause God saves you anyway Oh well – free grace calvinists will be surprised one day
RichardAnna Boyce
Romans 5:20-21 Amplified Bible (AMP)
20 But the Law came to increase and expand [the awareness of] the trespass [by defining and unmasking sin]. But where sin increased, [God’s remarkable, gracious gift of] grace [His unmerited favor] has surpassed it and increased all the more (huperperisseuo (grace abounded much more)), 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness which brings eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
RichardAnna Boyce
Repentance is COMPULSORY for a believer to earn rewards in the Millennium.
Lyndsey Dunn
RichardAnna Boyce repentance is an issue of the heart not just just your mind. God will judge both your actions and intent. You have not been washed by the blood of Jesus if you are not clean. Mystical cleanliness based on “right” thinking” living in faux righteousness while still walking in sin is a lie of the devil. The gospel washes us pure into righteousness and changes our hearts and minds by the word and the power of the Spirit. There is no law against the fruit bore by the indwelling of the Spirit. There are plenty of laws against the acts of the flesh manifest in sin. Even most of the world understands basic difference of righteousness and evil. There is no power in a gospel that leaves you in sin and does not change you. According to scripture, those who preach these false teachings will fall under harsh judgement having led so many astray.
RichardAnna Boyce
belief governs thinking, which then governs feeling, which finally governs behaving. I repeat Repentance is COMPULSORY for a believer to earn rewards in the Millennium. Repentance is changing our belief and agreeing with God. Sure, we need to talk to Daddy about our sinful heart when our concsience needs to; but then we need to agree with Dad that we already have the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
Varnel Watson
free HYPER grace is a heresy of course; what else?
RichardAnna Boyce
Romans 5:20-21 Amplified Bible (AMP)
20 But the Law came to increase and expand [the awareness of] the trespass [by defining and unmasking sin]. But where sin increased, [God’s remarkable, gracious gift of] grace [His unmerited favor] has surpassed it and increased all the more (huperperisseuo (grace abounded much more)), 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness which brings eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Law is costly and brings curses; huperperisseuo grace abounded much more, and is FREE.
Varnel Watson
anything hyper is heretical in my Book
Mark D Knight
The word Hyper is from loan words of the greek where it meant “excess or exaggeration” in this since it is wrong. However it is also defined as energetic from that meaning I pray and hope I am energetic about His grace.
RichardAnna Boyce
is it wrong to say (huperperisseuo (grace abounded much more, in exaggerated excess than what we can imagine), when sin increased?
Mark D Knight
I do believe that His grace is much more than we can imagine. We get caught up on words like Hyper in one since I believe it is Hyper in the since of energetic. However I believe there is balance.
Varnel Watson
anything hyper is heretical in my Book