Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Gerry Folbre <gfolbreiii AT gmail.com>]

In Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the feminine noun terminology
מן־האדמה {from the ground}, as used in Gen. 2:19 and there would be no
contextual anomaly.  But that terminology was not used in Gen. 2:7.  Or, in
Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the masculine noun חמר {clay} and again
there would be no contextual anomaly. In stead, however, the author
specifically used the masculine noun עפר {dry, loose earth} thus creating
the contextual anomaly.



Did the author intend to create this anomaly?  And, if the author did
intentionally create this anomaly; why?



Gerry Folbre


On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl AT gmail.com> wrote:

> I hear you well.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Oun.
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Gerry Folbre <gfolbreiii AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Oun Kwon:
> > Am I reading you correctly?  You are wondering if lexical meanings as
> such
> > are all that fixed?
> > It is not so much "the meanings" of the terms, but rather how the same
> term
> > is used throughout the Hebrew Tanakh, as well as what terms are used as
> > synonyms.  For example: עפר {dry, loose dirt} is used as a synonym of חול
> > {dry partacles of sand} as well as אפר {dry ashes}.  However, עפר {dry,
> > loose dirt} is never used as a synonym of חמר {wet mud, or potters clay}.
> > Do you see what I am driving at?
> >
> > Gerry Folbre
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> I'm wondering lexical meanings as such are all that fixed.
> >>
> >> Oun.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gerry Folbre <gfolbreiii AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Oun Kwon:
> >> >
> >> > The Hebrew masculine noun “עפר {dust; dry, loose earth) from the
> ground"
> >> > is
> >> > never used as a synonym of the masculine noun חמר {cement, mortar,
> clay
> >> > (as
> >> > material of vessels; of God’s fashioning man; as material of human
> >> > bodies),
> >> > mire}.  Therefore, עפר & חמר are not synonymous.
> >> >
> >> > From my point of view, the commentaries you have been reading are
> >> > incorrect.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Gerry Folbre
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>