Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:33:46 +0300 "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
writes:
> Does anyone know why 'ed in Genesis 2:6 is translated "mist"? This 
> rendering has nothing to do with the root meaning, and both here and 
> in Job "to turn" is more likely translation, assuming a derivation 
> from aleph-holam-dalet.
> 
> Genesis 2:5 ends with, "Man was not there to work the ground."
> Genesis 2:6, "He [man] would turn, he would rise out of the earth, 
> would water the whole face of the ground." The man was formed from 
> earth to water it.
> Genesis 2:7, "Lord God begot the man, dust of the earth he [the man] 
> breathed into his nostrils, essence of life; the man was for a 
> living soul."
> 
> Translation "the mist" doesn't make much sense: if we assume that 
> the earth was waterless, then where the mist came from? Besides, 
> Genesis 1:7 explicitly mentions that the earth included much water.
> 
> Vadim Cherny
> _______________________________________________

Just where do you propose to find "man" in Gen 2.6?  I note that you 
supply it, by there is no word )DM in the text.  Your proposal if far
more insupportable in that you simply ignore )"D.  As a matter of fact,
)"D in 2.6 is, according to HALOT represented in Akkadian by edu
"inundation."  What is therefore pictured is a natural irrigation rather
than one dependent upon the efforts of man.  It would seem to make
perfectly good sense in the context.

george
gfsomsel
___________