Bill, you are comparing Genesis 2:7 with 6:17 and
7:15 and you say that the "subject matter is totally
different." It seems that that is the matter under debate.
You also paraphrase 2:7 by saying that "Man is different.
He has God's Spirit and he is therefore spiritually
alive. The animals aren't." Since 2:7 uses nishmat, not
ruach (which is the more typical OT word for God's Spirit)
that paraphrase seems to argue for more overlap between the
words than you are otherwise willing to concede.
I agree that the creation of Adam receives more attention
in Genesis 2 and that there is certainly something unique
about it, but I remain skeptical about the use of these
words to establish that uniqueness. Several points need
to be made:
1. While 6:17 and 7:15 use ruach hayyim (I would argue
with reference to both mankind and animals), 2:7 does use
nishmat hayyim, which is a different phrase. My point in
the earlier post was that these phrases are used in
parallel in Job (27:3; 33:4; 34:14) and that they are
virtually indistinguishable in biblical usage as a
result. That conclusion is strengthened by the use of
ruach alone in Psalm 104 and in Ezekiel 37. As I recall,
you responded that they were used synonymously in in
later literature but with distinction in Genesis. I
would have to see verification of that idea, since
lexical studies that I've seen argue precisely the
opposite (any distinction coming later).
2. Gen. 1:30 uses nephesh hayyah, meaning "living soul,"
which is used of the man in 2:7. Since both the man
and the animals are described with this phrase, the
conclusion of 2:7 that the man was now a living soul
does not speak to his being "spiritually alive" in
distinction from the animals. In fact, 2:17 repeats
both the creation from the ground and the conclusion
that the creature was now a "living soul", only here
with no reference to the "dust" specifically or to
the specific act of "inspiration."
Those of us who are following this little discussion
all seem to agree on human uniqueness. We just differ
on which arguments best demonstrate that. The "breath
of life" argument from Gen. 2:7 is frequently cited,
but I would argue that it is inappropriate, just as
it would be inappropriate to argue from this text
for a soul/body dualism. I believe we do have material
and immaterial aspects, but that isn't the focus of
this text. Nor is it making a point about humans alone
having the breath of life.
One additional note: The dictionary in Strongs is very
helpful, but it is dated and clearly has its limits.
Theological dictionaries and more specialized lexicons
would be something to watch for in the book sales! :)