Genesis 1:10
A Pool of Hope
And mighty ones is calling out to the Dry Earthly One, and to the Hope of the Dual-Waters he has called forth manifestations. And mighty ones is seeing, for he became good.And God will call to the dry, earth; and to the gathering of the waters he called seas: and God will see that it is good.
And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the collection of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good.
Footnotes
| 23 | Genesis 1:10 The "Bath" of the Days Strong’s #4723, miqveh. Hope, binding place, collection, pool. This word speaks of a place where things bind or unite as in a reservoir or pool, or rope (as twisted together). The NT uses the pool in many instances as a place of hope. “as a shadow are our days upon the Earth, and there is not a hope [miqveh].” (1 Chron. 29:15 RBT) “and now, there is a hope [miqveh] in Israel upon this one.” (Ezra 10:2 RBT) “A hope [miqveh] of Israel, his savior in time of trouble…” (Jer. 14:8 RBT) “The hope [miqveh] of Israel is Yahweh, all of those who forsake you are being ashamed, withdrawn ones within the Earth are being written, for they have left the dug-fountain of the Dual Waters, living-ones of את self eternal Yahweh.” (Jer. 17:13 RBT) “Yahweh, the hope [miqveh] of their fathers” (Jer. 50:7 RBT) |
| 24 | Genesis 1:10 Manifestation of Light Hebrew #3220 ימים yamim, "days" “in multiplied dual-waters the Rowers brought you את-you, a wind of the East/Front has broken yourself in the heart of days [yamim].” Eze. 27:26. ימים (yamim) is a classic example of a Hebrew homograph that can mean either:
Is it a chronological "day"? If יומ / יום is read aonically rather than temporally, the primary mistake to avoid is treating it as a unit on a timeline at all. What Fürst (and already Strong, Gesenius, etc.) preserve—almost despite themselves—is that temporal “day” is a late abstraction from a much more concrete, qualitative field. What is usually missed is that יום is not fundamentally a measure of duration, but a state of manifestation. Several points emerge once you strip away chronological assumptions. First, the root complex. The lexica themselves admit that the verbal stem יומ is not productively used as a verb in Hebrew, surviving mainly in derivatives and cognates. This is already a signal: we are dealing with a nominalized condition, not an action unfolding in time. The cognate field (Arab. to glow, be hot, shine; Heb. אור, Aram. cognates) clusters around radiance, heat, clarity, emergence. “Day” is the name given to the condition in which things are exposed, differentiated, and intelligible. Second, Genesis 1 confirms this ontologically. Light exists before luminaries or cycles. יום אחד is not “day one” in sequence, but a unified condition of lightedness. Only later does יום become opposed to לילה and subordinated to luminaries. Chronos is derivative; manifestation is primary. Third, Fürst’s own glosses betray this. He defines יום as “brightness, splendour, shining, light” before he ever gets to calendrical usage. Even when he discusses “mid-day” or “evening,” these are intensities of the same condition: fullness, decline, withdrawal. These are phase-states, not ticks on a clock. Fourth, the “civil day” definition (including night) is explicitly secondary. That is a human administrative construct, not the semantic core. The lexicon quietly acknowledges this by labeling it “various applications.” In an aonic frame, then, יום names a mode of presence. It is the state in which being is “on,” exposed, available, radiant. Night is not a later time, but a different ontological condition—concealment, contraction, unavailability. This also clarifies texts like:
In short, what is missing is that יום is not about when something happens, but whether and how it is manifest. Chronos borrows the word later to measure recurrence, but the aonic sense is ontological: lightedness, exposure, active presence. יום = “the condition of manifest being.” If we are to give a single English noun for the primary meaning, “manifestation” is preferable to “light,” because the word does not merely denote luminosity but the condition in which things are exposed, differentiated, and operative. “Light” names the medium; יום names the regime. Thus, ordered by semantic priority rather than tradition:
ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα (John 3:21) φανερόω does not mean merely “to inform” or “to disclose data.” It means to bring into the domain of light where reality becomes intelligible and verifiable. Manifestation is not epistemic only; it is ontological. What is “in God” already is; φανέρωσις is its emergence into visibility. |
