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;
No J in Hebrew. So it’s Yehovah. But Yehovah is man made name not Gods name.
Guest;
Batterson, in his book “Whisper,” points out that YHWH is the sound a breath makes
Guest;
Jesus and Yahweh are one
He who has seen YHWH has seen Jesus
Guest;
Tom Steele may disagree with @charles page
Guest;
This article covers the OP in detail:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/truth-ignited/the-sacred-name-of-god/942363465925087/
Guest;
On old thread, but I’ll tell you what I learned in Hebrew class at UGA. The professor was a really good teacher. I think he went to Hebrew Union, which is or was supposed to be top notch in Hebrew academia for Hebrew profs to graduate from along with Harvard and other schools like that. One of the other profs went to Harvard.
Anyway, the professor said that the Hebrew (of course) was not originally written with vowels. It is believed that the name of God was pronounced Yahweh. The Jewish Masoretes added the vowel pointing system to the Bible in the 300’s, presumably to preserve traditional pronunciation. But since Jews did not want to say the name of God, they said ‘Adonai’ instead. So Jews would put the letters for ‘Adonai’, which means lord, under the divine name so that they would not pronounce it. The vowels do not really match up with the consunants for YHWH according to the pronunciation system. My professor said an Italian monk in the 1500s transcribed the consonants together with the Masoretic vowels to create what came into English as ‘Jehovah.’
Ashkenazic pronunciation is to pronounce ‘waw’ in Hebrew with two ‘v’ sounds. The original pronunciation may have been a ‘w’ sound. Maybe the ‘w’ and ‘v’ sounds got mixed up from Germanic influence or influence from other European languages. ‘Y’ came into ‘English’ as a ‘J’ sound as an initial consonant. If I remember right a/e are the same sound in Hebrew, or can be.
I do not agree with all the conclusions of these smart alecy mythical Lutheran twins, but they get some of it right. I thought it was silly that they said Hebrew was originally written without vowels because it was easier to transcribe. Maybe the creator of the cartoon did not realize the vowel system was created later or just made a strange bit of distracting speculation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__7t_bGI8oo
Guest;
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-jehovistic-titles/
Guest;
Link is pretty much right about this… all of those points he made and more are detailed in the article I shared. It does appear, however, that there were vowels in Hebrew before the creation of the vowel marking system. It seems there were some Hebrew characters that served as both vowels and consonants, much like the letter ‘Y’ in English.
Josephus said that the proper name of God was made up of four vowels. I have traced this to a conclusion that the Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, all being among the characters that shared the vowel characteristic at times, would be the four vowels he alluded to.
This further lends credibility to the name being pronounced something like “Yah-Weh”. I recommend reading the article I posted, it is filled with a lot of interesting points about the name of God and the controversy between “Jehovah” and “Yahweh”.
Guest;
I don’t know why Hebrew sound does have VOWELS. But they say it doesn’t. Because Yahweh has an E. Well Perry Stone, can answer those things for you.
Guest;
In studying about the woman with an issue of blood. I looked it up and I have heard it preached. That the Prayer Shawl that the Jews wore. The strands of thread that they knitted or put on every Prayer Shawl had knots with those letters in each strand that hung down in the comets of their Prayer Shawl. Had those letters made in every one. So I was thinking. The woman with the issue of blood. No wonder she said , if I can touch the hem of His garment. She would be healed. It’s because she knew Gods Name was in every strain hang down, she would be touching God. I believe that’s the reason she wanted to touch His Hem. She would be touching His Name. It makes a lot of sense to me. She could haves touched Him anywhere. And with faith faith she could have been. But she wanted to touch His Him. And He was The Word made flesh. She touched Him. And was made whole.
Guest;
I found the truth
Guest;
Guest;
Guest;
Guest;
Guest;
God likes the name of Jesus. it’s the devil that don’t like it.
Guest;
My face book has been hacked. I wrote a message on my page. But they are still doing it. I might have to change my number. If I can remember it. But that sounds like just what I was talking about. I love study like that. But I have you get all this stuff cleared first. Thank you so much. You have already helped. Just printing where it’s found in the Old Testament. Thanks again.
Guest;
I wouldn’t go that far
Robert Erwine
moses ” hey let’s see some ID here “
Varnel Watson
Tom Steele had some good words on this
Steve Losee
“Jehovah” is a Latin construct, and as such, can’t possibly be Scriptural or accurate. “Yahweh” is the modern Hebrew word for “I AM” (Ex. 3:14), so is possibly accurate, though ancient Hebrew — in its written form — had no vowels. So the only name we can be sure of is YHWH (transliterating the Hebreww letters for English), which is unpronounceable except for “Yod-Heh-Vah-Heh”. But since the New Testament translates that word as “Lord”, I think that’ll suffice. 🙂
Ray E Horton
Who cares? I’m sure the Lord doesn’t.
Philip Williams
Yehovah!
Link Hudson
They say they put the letters for adonai below YHWH. The word ‘Jehovah’ does not follow the rules for pronouncing vowels anyway. They don’t match the consonants using that system. The vowels were added in the 300’s AD anyway.
Varnel Watson
300 sAD? was that the first or the second YHWH ?
Link Hudson
That may have been 1300s. Fuzzy memory on my part. I wouldn’t make jokes like that involving the tetragrammaton.
Varnel Watson
are you referring to the the first or the second YHWH ?
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Jehovah a man made name no “J” in Hebrew.
Varnel Watson
we spoke with Tom Steelea about that already
Varnel Watson
YES Francis R Lyons III
Paul Loveble we’ve discussed this in detail before
Jerome Herrick Weymouth Jehovah is the name GOD called Himself with in Exodus 3
James Darlack has little to do with the Germanic Y and more with the Hebrew origin of the tetragram; IN Greek too James/Jacob is Yacob/v
James Darlack
Troy Day The J in German transliterates the Yodh of the Tetragrammaton just like the Y in English translates it. English speakers pronounce the J like Jim. But a German would pronounce it Yehovah. So in essence, if the J/Y and the V/W are interchangeable. The vowels are either Masoretic replacements or educated guesses at the vocalization. YHWH=Yahweh=Jehovah=יהוה
Varnel Watson
James Darlack The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Latin-speaking Christian scholars substituted the Y (which does not exist in Latin) with an I or a J (the latter of which exists in Latin as a variant form of I). Thus, the tetragrammaton became the artificial Latinized name Jehovah (JeHoWaH). As the use of the name spread throughout medieval Europe, the initial letter J was pronounced according to the local vernacular language rather than Latin.
James Darlack
Troy Day We’re saying the same thing.
Varnel Watson
James Darlack did you answer Paul Loveble his question if YHWH is GOD?
James Darlack
I inferred its complexity. יהוה is God’s name. We can only approximate/speculate its pronunciation, and YHWH, Jehovah, and Yahweh are the various ways that יהוה has been written in German and English (and Latin).
Varnel Watson
Ray E Horton you mean that GOD is I Am that I Am! not that you are I Am that I Am!
Ray E Horton
Troy Day Guess you better hope that’s what I meant. 🙂