"Man" (2:5) is the *only* antecedent to "he" implied in the 3rd person verb at the beginning of 2:6. ...
Since "man" is negated in v.5, he cannot be the subject of v.6.
If you need to supply a subject for v.6, it is more likely to be YHWH Elohim.
But then you have the inconvenient word 'ED, which can hardly be a verb. For there is no verb root alef-holam-dalet in biblical Hebrew.
2:7 also seems to indicate that it was the man who breathed the dust, not God who breathed it into the man. ...
No it does not. 'ADAM is explicitly marked as the object in this verse with the marker 'ET.
... A possible reason to mention that detail is that the land was dusty, not irrigated yet.
Which is a very odd conclusion considering that the verse before has just said that it was irrigated.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.