General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

“And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Gen. 1) — A Different Interpretation

(Related podcast: “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Genesis 1) — A Different Interpretation (Podcast) .)

The known verse from the first chapter of Genesis appears therein, not surprisingly, six times.

The two central words of the verse, which confer on it its meaning, are Boker (morning in biblical Hebrew) and Erev (evening). However, their order of appearance in the verse is bizarre:

“…and there was evening and there was morning one day” (Genesis 1:5).

This is logically flawed (and same applies to all other five variations of the verse). The correct articulation should be:

“…and there was morning and there was evening one day”.

Perhaps the verse is misconstrued by us? Is there an alternative interpretation that may remove the logical flaw, inherent to current interpretation?

In this post (and the allied podcast), we offer a new interpretation. The latter integrates well with the creation narrative, as unfolding in Genesis 1, and, astoundingly, it also comports well with current scientific knowledge of the Big-Bang and its aftermath.

Ultimately, the new interpretation also explains why the same two words, Erev and Boker, stand for “evening” and “morning”, respectively, in traditional interpretations of the verse.

We base the new interpretation on a basic root analysis of the two words, and support it by numerous other verses in the Jewish Bible, where same roots appear in a context utterly divorced from the traditional meaning as “evening” and “morning”; yet, in context that is consistent with the new interpretation.

Therefore, both Erev and Boker, and their respective roots, are hence forth discussed with no relationship whatsoever to their acceptable meanings as evening and morning, respectively.

We start with Erev.

This word, and other words of same root, appear over 150 times in the Bible. The Hebrew root of Erev corresponds to E.R.B, in English. Most times, the root is associated with “evening”, but not uniquely so. Another common usage relates to mixing, or mixture. Thus, Erev-Rav (literally, “much mixture”) stands for a mixture of tribes, Arov stands for a mixture of animals (one of the Ten Plights of Egypt), and Le-itarev means to mix together.

In other words, Erev, in biblical Hebrew, simply means mixture.

Not surprisingly, the time of day when darkness starts crawling over earth, is also called Erev in Hebrew.

Let us next consider Boker.

Traditionally, the word means morning. We might be astonished to learn that its root is tightly linked to Erev, when the latter is interpreted as mixture. Furthermore, as we shall soon realize, the root of Boker diametrically represents the opposite of Erev, when the latter is interpreted as mixture.

Let us analyze usage of the root of Boker (B.K.R) in various biblical Hebrew words.

The grammatical structure of Boker is the same as Chodesh (month, in Hebrew). The verb associated with Chodesh is Le-Chadesh, meaning to renew. One may understand why month in Hebrew implies renewal, since the Hebrew calendar is based on the lunar (moon-based) month, with some periodical adjustments to keep it in tune with the solar calendar (sun-based calendar).

Similarly, the respective verb, associated with Boker, is Le-Vaker. Among other related meanings, Le-Vaker in biblical Hebrew means to seek out, namely, to make something that is mixed distinct and separate. For example (from Collins Concise Dictionary): “She sought out her friend from among the crowd”.

A typical example for the use of Le-Vaker, sharing same root with Boker, is found in Leviticus. The verse describes donation of an animal to be sacrificed to Jehovah. The verse addresses the donor and relates to his animal donation (Leviticus 27:33):

“He must not seek out (Lo Ye-Vaker) the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.”

In other words, if the donated animal is defective, impaired in some way, the donor must not distinguish the good from the bad, or make substitution, so that the sacrifice includes only good parts of the animal. The latter must be sacrificed in its totality.  

Similarly, refer to Leviticus 13:36, or Ezekiel 34:11-12.

We realize that, according to the new interpretation based on root analysis, Erev and Boker are inherently connected, diametrically representing two opposite states. Erev describes a state of mixture; Boker describes a state that is the outcome of sorting out the mixture into its individual constituents, rendering them distinct, “separate from the crowd” (the mixture). In short, Boker describes a new state, where constituents of the mixture stand each on its own, materializing to full fruition as a result of the act of bakarah (seeking out the ingredients of the mixture).

With this new insight, based on root analysis of the two words Erev and Boker, the well-known verse, “and there was evening and there was morning”, acquires a completely new meaning. It may more precisely be re-articulated as follows:

”There was mixture (Erev), and then there was non-mixture (Boker)”, a new state where the mixture is dissolved, sorted out into its individual constituents.

We again note that the traditional interpretation, “And there was evening and there was morning one day” (and other versions of same verse) are logically flawed. The morning appears before the evening (to define a day), not the other way around. With the new interpretation, this logical flaw disappears since time is appropriately preserved.

Is the new interpretation consistent with the general description of creation, as unfolding in Genesis creation narrative?

Indeed, very much so.

In Genesis creation narrative, as unfolding in the first chapter of Genesis, the word “create” (Bara), appears not six times, as might be expected, but only twice. It first appears in Genesis 1:1 as an overall statement of all that have been created:

“In the beginning Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The second time creation is mentioned in Genesis creation narrative relates to the human species (Genesis 1:27):

“So Elohim created Mankind, in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him, male and female He created them”.

One may wonder:

If creation had happened “In the Beginning” (Genesis 1:1), and then on the sixth day (Genesis 1:27), what has the Divine being engaged in the rest of the six days, where creation is not at all mentioned?

The surprising answer is embedded in the two words, Erev and Boker, based on their new interpretation, based on their root analysis.

In the other days, when no creation is specified, Genesis creation narrative describes, individually for each day, how Elohim, by Divine utterance, has turned Erev (a state of mixture) into Boker (a state of non-mixture, individual parts sorted out from the mixture).

In other words, in most of the creation narrative of Genesis 1, the Divine separates the mixture, created “in the beginning”, into its distinct individual elements, materializing them from the uniform mixture, into which they were initially embedded.

How does this interpretation comport with modern science?

Indeed, surprisingly well.

The two words, Erev and Boker, as newly interpreted, are extremely consistent with how the Big-Bang and its aftermath, in the first few seconds of existence, are currently described by science.

A central element in this description is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This radiation is a relic of the Big-Bang and its immediate aftermath. The uniformity of the radiation across the universe testifies that in the “Beginning” the universe was extremely uniform.

This uniformity is echoed in the Bible, describing the just created physical world (“The Earth”; Genesis 1:2):

“And The Earth was without form and void (Tohu Va-Vohu)..”.

Using root analysis of the two Hebrew words, Tohu and Vohu, let us make sense of this verse and find out what it really conveys.

Science describes the first few seconds after the Big-Bang as extremely uniform. Nothing is yet distinct, there is no information to observe. This scientific description is reflected in Tohu and Bohu. The Bible describes the just created world as being in a state that whatever an observer at the time would observe, he or she will be bewildered (Li-Tehot, to wonder; Hebrew verb linked to Tohu). Also, the imaginary observer would look around purposelessly (Li-vehot; Hebrew verb linked to Bohu). Both descriptions allude to an observer, bewildered and looking around purposelessly. Why? because there is no information, nothing to observe that might help making sense of the observed (just as in a desert).

We have come to the end of our exploration journey regarding creation of The Earth, as alluded to in Genesis 1. We realized that in most days of creation, the Divine sorted out, by uttering a Divine command, that which was created “In the beginning”.

We address the second creation, that of humankind (on the sixth day of creation; Genesis 1:27).

Humankind was not created when God created “The Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1), or the word “created” would not be repeated describing creation of Mankind (Genesis 1:27).

Since creation first alludes to “The Heavens and the Earth”, and only later to Humankind, we, human beings, are doomed to repeat, in our own life, the same process, as described regarding The Earth in the first five days of Genesis creation (and some also on the sixth day) .

According to the creation narrative, the physical world (The Earth) has moved, from one day to the next, from a vague mixture (Erev, Tohu Va-Vohu) into its visible distinct constituents (Boker), turning the potential into observable reality.

We, human beings, who were separately created, are doomed to repeat the same process as The Earth.

Exercising free will, we are doomed to sort out the hidden faceless mixture, residing within us from infancy, into observable, distinct and separate personality and character.

Once we do that, transforming the potential, lurking within us in a mixture form, into the “I”, or “Me”, which we have grown up to become;

Once we do that, then, and only then, may we offer our own creation, our own non-mixed unique self, to the world, to be of benefit to the rest of humanity, and to all other creatures living on the surface of Planet Earth.

My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew Shorties

Shorty*: Why Genesis Third Day is Unlike the Rest?

Is Third Day in Genesis Creation narrative the same as other Days?? My statistical model for Genesis creation links the scientific time-scale (in terms of billions of years since Big-Bang) to Genesis narrative (in terms of “Days”). However, Third Day narrative had been excluded from the data used in the statistical analysis that led to the final highly-significant statistical model.

Why was that?

The answer is straightforward: Genesis narrative for Third Day (Genesis 1:9-13) implies that Earth and all vegetation (plants, trees, grass and else) had preceded formation of the sun and the moon on the fourth day (“and God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night”, Genesis 1:16).

This seems strange and defies current scientific knowledge. Thus, the mystery remains: If all other Genesis “Days” fit nicely (in the statistical model) with current scientific knowledge, what is special about Third Day that it does not?

I have long been tormented by this question, which seems to undermine and defy the notion that Genesis Creation is a faithful description of the timeline of modern science (as has been validated via the highly-significant statistical model). But then I was reminded of a known idiom, repeatedly uttered by Jewish sages:

“Torah spoke as in human language” (“דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם”).

What this idiom implies is that although Torah source is Divine it does speak in human terms so that humans can understand Torah and relate to it.

To realize how this idiom is relevant to the “Third Day Quandary”, let us be reminded of the prevailing world view throughout ancient times, in fact until the time of Copernicus (1473-1543). The prevailing view was the geocentric model (also known as Geo-centrism, or the Ptolemaic system; In what follows we pursue Wikipedia, “Geocentric model”). This model reigned supreme for over 1500 years of human history, and it had served as cornerstone description of the cosmos in numerous ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle and Ptolemy. According to this model, the sun, moon, stars, and planets all encircle Earth (“geo”), therefore Earth is the center of the universe.

Two observations supported this idea:

  • The sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the moon and the planets have their own particular motions, which change over time, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. The stars appeared to be on a celestial sphere, rotating once each day along an axis through the north and south geographic poles of Earth;
  • Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer; it appears to be solid, stable, and unmoving.

(refer, however, to page 118 in my book, where I describe why Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) expressed objection to the geocentric model, based purely on his logical analysis of the root of the Hebrew word for Earth).

Geocentrism (Ptolemy’s geocentric model) stayed unchallenged in Western culture until the 16th century, when, through the synthesis of the theories of Copernicus and Kepler, it was gradually superseded by the current scientifically validated Heliocentric model (Sun-centered model) of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.

Genesis Third Day description is realization of the geocentric world view, prevailing in ancient times. If the sun and the moor rotate around Earth, the latter must have been formed earlier than the former. There is no other way to describe creation and remain faithful to the intuitive geocentric view. Thus, Genesis Third Day narrative had become a prerequisite for Genesis creation to preserve any semblance of reliability. Being consistent with the then prevailing geocentric world view, Torah ensured that the ancient Israelites would have accepted it as of Divine origin and not reject it outright as utterly false. Just try to imagine Torah telling ancient Israelites that the sun and mood, rotating Earth, had been formed prior to Earth. Would Torah then be acceptable to them? “Torah spoke as in human language”.

Is there any signature to the Third Day, pointing to it as somewhat unlike all other days?

I believe there is: This is the only day where the words “and God saw that it was good” appear twice. This is in stark contrast to the “routine” employed in all other days, where Torah expresses this idea in its typical succinct way, namely, stating this only once.

This unique feature of the Third Day perhaps has a mission: Telling us that this description of events, supposedly taking place on Third Day, intends to speak to us in the then humanly comprehensible language. But only for a limited period of time, that is, until the emergence of the scientifically validated Helio-centric world view.

Exclusion of Third Day events from the data, used to derive the highly significant statistical model, thus seems to be corroborated and completely justified.


*Shorty is a short post

My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

Average Length of the Lunar Month Calculated from Baharad and Ve-Yad

This post shows how average lunar month may be algebraically calculated, accurate to five decimal points, from two ancient Jewish concepts, Baharad and Ve-Yad, associated with Written Torah (Genesis) and Oral Torah, respectively.

The average duration of the lunar (moon-based) month is, according to NASA site, 29.530589 days. Jewish tradition offers two concepts, basic to the Jewish calendar:

Baharad and Ve-Yad.

Both are related to an “attempt” to include the six days of creation (no regular days by any account) in the regular Jewish calendar. This is done by defining an imaginary year that preceded the start of the first lunar renewal in the Jewish calendar (starting, according to Jewish tradition, with the completion of the creation of Adam).

In the article, linked below, I show that these two concepts alone, Baharad and Ve-Yad, are sufficient to obtain a solution to an algebraic equation, which implies that the average duration of the lunar month is 29.530594 days (a deviation of 0.000005 days from the value cited at NASA site).

Haim Shore_Average Length of Lunar Month Calculated from Genesis and Jewish Tradition_Oct 2014

Same article appears in Hebrew in a separate post.