Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> > 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

"Man" (2:5) is the *only* antecedent to "he" implied in the 3rd person verb 
at the beginning of 2:6.
I don't know how the pronunciation and meaning of "edu" was established in 
Akkadian, but such direct borrowing, ignoring the root system of Hebrew, is 
unusual.
2:7 also seems to indicate that it was the man who breathed the dust, not 
God who breathed it into the man. A possible reason to mention that detail 
is that the land was dusty, not irrigated yet.

Vadim Cherny