Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> > > No it does not. 'ADAM is explicitly marked as the object in this verse 
> > > with the marker 'ET.
> >
> >
> > Sure. But et refers to another phrase: God begot the man, pause, [then] 
> > he breathed. The formal antecedent to "breathed" is the man, though we 
> > cannot exclude that it was God. ...
>
>
> No, this is a rule that I am sure of, that in a chain of WAYYIQTOLs with 
> no explicit subject on a following clause the assumed subject is the 
> subject rather than the object of the preceding clause.

That is for sure. The point is, is there an unbroken chain of wayiqtols in 
2:7, or rather two phrases: the man was formed or designated, and that dust 
blew in his face, suggesting him to go irrigate.

Vadim Cherny