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
talked w/ Bill @ OUR
have NEW details for
you buddy Link
Anonymous
I’ll bite. What did he say? Do they still require the oath?
I got to thinking about the trustee thing. I don’t know how private Christian schools go for governance, but other universities have to have trustees sign off on certain changes.
Anonymous
Link Hudson not @ liberty to discuss
but it was mentioned ANY school nowadays require you to sign their Student Handbook/Catalog as part of your adherence to their policy. It is presumable that you have also signed upon contract – every school covers their behind with one such solemn document – or more than one seemingly
Anonymous
basically Link Hudson it was said that refusal to document partnership is rarely the ONLY thing the committee looks into You already know the rest?
Anonymous
Troy Day I don’t know what you are talking about. Documented partnership? I’ve had business classified as a sole proprietership and when I did business with someone besides my wife it was an LLC.
When I was offered a job at ORUI was just supposed to sign and would have had a contract. I already was vetted by the committee and the president. But the ageeement included a vow to the Lord, so I declined to sign. I had been given the paperwork just recently, after the job offer.
ORU people were very kind and understanding. They kept us up at the next to top floor of the old City of Faith tower, across tge hall from Vincent Synan, who tried to interceed on my behalf on the oath issue.
The COGOP doctrinal statement on their website forbids swearing oaths, based on the words of Christ in Matthew and on the book of James, stating that an affirmation in court is sufficient. Their president was with COGOP.
I thought the vow thing might be influenced by WOFers out there in Tulsa. I remember being appalled in the ’80’s by Tilton (out of Texas) pushing the vow to God thing.
This is a bigger deal for compromise for a Pentecostal than particulars about ‘initial evidence’ ir pretrib rapture since ‘Swear not at all’ are actual teachings of Christ that are in the Bible. You seem to think it a big deal to be a member or even attend a church if you disagree over the minor issues
Anonymous
What a weirdly written article. It looks like something written by AI, but I think I have seen it elsewhere, and I am guessing it is sloppily generated content to attract people to web pages to see adds.
What Pentecostal denomination actually requires ‘vows’ or ‘oaths’– or uses that language to get ordained? I’ve never heard of that. Signing to agree is more of a let your yea be ye type approach.
Anonymous
Link Hudson well lets start with ORU – what was required there?
Anonymous
Link Hudson Is There an Oath to Become a Pentecostal Reverend?
By Erika Winston
Anonymous
John Mushenhouse but there is MORE
Pentecostals take oaths is ALL different ways
When minor children get passports both parents must swear
if foreign wife or husband they take OATH of allegiance
When any Christian liberal arts college hires they require some sort of faith commitment and adherence
BTW same goes for just about any school job out there – you MUST sign their school book of conduct and this is an OATH signed with your own hand
Anonymous
I go by God’s call and not man’s oaths. Submission and subjection under the one greater than ourselves.
Anonymous
Troy Day no it isn’t. Agrering is not the same as an oath.
The law can be sloppy with this. Georgia calls an either swearing OR affirming one is a citizen an ‘oath’ in the law, but the form gives the option to affirm. Their overseas form requires swearing.
Protestant ‘marriage vows’ may not require an actual vow, though Roman Catholics may swear in the ceremony.
Anonymous
Troy Day ORU required solemly vowing to the Lord to obey the administration as it changed the rules, not breaking the law, not missing chapel, keeping the exercise program, and lots of other things.
Anonymous
Link Hudson so does any other school out there – the problem is in the personal preference NOT in the school handbook that protects the school from lawsuits
Anonymous
Troy Day I suspect you do not make a distinction between swearing a vow and just making an agreement, which is an important distinction when it comes to this topic. I’ve never seen any documents at any university elsewhere that required students or faculty to swear to God to be a student or employee. I’ve taken classes at four and worked for four universities and a college.
Anonymous
Link Hudson is it swearing a vow and just making an agreement
WHEN
– you swear for minor children to receive US passports? – both parents
– take public oath to become US citizen
and so on SO many govt. examples
Anonymous
John Mushenhouse perhaps you can give a more theological meaning to what the author of the article is saying in regard of all this
Anonymous
Troy Day i read a passport application a few months ago and do not recall a requirement to swear. The constitution provides for the choice of affirming, and this is typical of federal documents. Pennsylvania (especially) had Quakers and various German Brethren type groups from colonial times. There is a long history of this.
Anonymous
Link Hudson either you did not do what you just claimed OR you do not know how to read BUT it cannot be BOTH
p.2 OATH: I declare under penalty of perjury that all statements made in this supporting document are true and correct.
https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds3053.pdf
Anonymous
Troy Day I would question your ability to read and comprehend, or your peculiar understanding of vocabulary. Affirming or declaring is not swearing oaths. I would not consider making a statement or affirmation under penalty of perjury to be an oath/vow/swearing/making an oath in the Biblical sense unless other language were used to indicate an oath was being made. Legally, it might be referred to as an ‘oath’ in some document.
And this doesn’t require swearing to God or swearing by God.
Anonymous
Link Hudson how would you get passports for your minor children ?
Anonymous
Troy Day one can fill out a paper midifying the oath. They even allow it for naturalization.
Anonymous
Link Hudson swearing is necessary only in a society where truth is not reverenced.