Actually, I’m curious about this
I think part of the confusion in this thread is that we’re confusing individuals words with their roots. Hebrew, like most (if not all) Semitic languages, structures much of their vocabulary using a sequence of consonants, most often three (triconsonantal roots).
Compare the following words:
אָדָם -
adam, masculine singular noun ‘man’
אָדֹם -
adom, masculine singular adjective ‘red’
אֲדָמָה -
adama, feminine singular noun ‘earth’
מַאֲדִים -
ma’adim, 1st person common singular hiphil qatal ‘I blush’ (or ‘I become red’)
All four are distinct words - with distinct meanings - that share a common triconsonantal root: א.ד.ם (alef.dalet.mem). They are otherwise distinguished by their particular vowels and (especially for verbs) prefixes and suffixes.
In respect to this, אָדָם (
adam) could not be the verb “to be red”, which is the infinitive לְהַאֲדִים (
l’ha’adim). For that matter, אָדָם (
adam) could not be confused for
any variant of the verb א.ד.ם (in any of its stems, many of which do not occur in the OT) as the verb has no arrangement of suffixes, prefixes and consonant that is the same as that of אָדָם (
adam).
In respect to vowels, Hebrew did not - in the beginning - include written vowels. But various systems were devised fairly early in history to provide the reader guidance. For e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls utilised a system whereby they inserted extra consonants (usually the waw consonant, ו) to indicate the correct vowel. Our current Masoretic system instead utilises dots, dashes and such above and below (“pointings”) to indicate vowels.
With that being said,
without vowel guidance, it
could be possible to read to אדם as either “man” or “red” (the adjective, not the verb), but it often becomes quite nonsensical. For example Gen 2:7 might be read “the Lord God formed
the red (אֶת־הָאָדֹם,
et-ha’adom) from the dust of the ground” rather than
the man (אֶת־הָאָדָם,
et-ha’adam).
