Quite interesting, Mr. Fried. It helps with the idea that Enosh was the
opposite type of ish to the Adam (son of man). Thank you.
David Fenton
NYC
Fulfillment
CafeSoy.com
-----Original Message-----
From: if AT math.bu.edu
To: davidfentonism AT aim.com
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Son of man vs. Enosh
I freely translate Genesis 4:26: “And a child was born also to SHET and he
called him ENOSH, thus began the habit of calling (children) by the name of
God.” From this I surmise that ENOSH=EIN+HU+ISH=EINO+ISH, ‘he is not man’ was
one of the holy names, usurped by SHET and given to his son.
It appears to me that KMOSH, the god of MOAB (see I Kings 11:7) is the
similar compound KMO+ISH, ‘like a man’ , כמו איש.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:07 PM, davidfentonism AT aim.com wrote:
> Can anyone shed light on the difference in translation relative to > Gen
> 4:26? It appears to say in the Hebrew that, 'Enosh began to > profane [the
> name of] Y--H Elohiym.' However, it is alternatively > read by Ibn Ezra
> and Sephorno (also seen in the LXX) as, 'Enosh > began to call upon the
> name of the LORD.'
>
> Further, is it possible that "men" could actually sanctify the > Name
> (Kiddush Hashem) or profane the Name (Chillul Hashem) of the > Living G-d?
> Other than idolatry, how might "men" be said to do or > have done either
> of these with respect to the Tetragrammaton?
>
> Thanks for your reply,
>
> David Fenton
> NYC
>
> ______________________________________________________________________> __
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry->
> leading spam and email virus protection.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading
spam and email virus protection.