衝擊應答函數와 船體運動에 關한 硏究

河啓常 서울産業大學校 1983 논문집 Vol.19 No.1

Impulse response function that Cummins has used to formulate linear equations of motion for ships subjected to nonmonochromatic excitation are surveyed and analyzed by the author to know its disadvantages and usefulness.

창세기 5장 1-3절의 한글 번역과 기능에 관한 고찰

하계상 한국구약학회 2015 구약논단 Vol.21 No.4

창세기 5:1-3은 대부분, 본질적으로 창세기 1:26-28의 반향(反響, echo)임에도 불구하고, 마치 그 사실을 전혀 파악하지 못한 것처럼, 한글 성경 역본들은 창세기 5:1-3을 미흡하게 번역해 놓았거나 그 번역에 일관성이 없다. 따라서 한글 성경 역본들에서 창세기 5:1-3의 번역을 바람직하게 고치고 그 번역에 일관성을 부여하며, 그 과정에서 창세기 1:26상, 27에 대한 한글 성경 역본들의 번역에도 부분적인 수정을 가하는 것이 본 논문의 첫째 목표이다. 따라서 논자는 BHS의 히브리 본문에 비추어 특히 히브리어 명사 첼렘(~l,c,., “형상, image”)과 더무트(tWmדְּ, “모양, likeness”), 히브리어 전치사 버(בְּ, “in”)와 커(כְּ, “after, according to”), 그리고 히브리어 동사 아싸(hf'[', “만들다, make”)와 바라(ar'B', “창조하다, create”)에 대한 번역과 그 번역의 일관성 여부에 주목하면서 연구가 진행될 것이다. 그리고 창세기 1:26상, 27과의 ‘연속성과 불연속성’을 고려하면서 창세기 5:1-3의 기능을 파악하는 것이 본 논문의 둘째 목표이다. 본 연구는 이 두 목표를 염두에 두고 공시적/문학적 관점에서 창세기 1:26상, 27과 5:1-3의 최종 형태의 본문을 가지고 진행하며, 그 본문들에 대한 상세한 주석은 그 대상에서 제외했다. 이 연구의 결과로 ~l,c,.과 tWmדְּ, בְּ와 כְּ, 그리고 hf'['와 ar'B'의 번역들 및 그 번역들의 일관성, 그리고 그것들이 이루고 있는 평행대구 및 교차대구의 문학적인 관점을 고찰함으로써 여섯 한글 성경 역본들의 창세기 1:26상, 27과 5:1-3에 있는 여덟 종류의 미흡한 번역들이 지적되었다. 창세기 5:1-3의 기능을 파악하기 위해서는 그 본문이 창세기 1:26상, 27과 갖는 밀접한 관련성 및 그 관련성의 본질을 이해할 필요가 있는데, 그것들은 ~l,c,.과 tWmדְּ, 그 단어들과 결합되어 있는 בְּ와 כְּ, 그리고 hf'['와 ar'B'가 이루고 있는 절묘한 구조들에 확연히 나타나 있다. 그런데 창세기 1:26상, 27과 5:1, 3에서 ~l,c,.과 tWmדְּ이 만드는 교차대구는, 창세기 5:1, 3이 창세기 1:26상, 27과 연속성 및 불연속성이 있음을 암시하고 있다. 불연속성은 아담의 범죄로 말미암아 인간이 하나님의 형상을 거의 잃어버렸다는 것이고, 연속성은 하나님의 형상이 인간에게 여전히 남아있다는 것이다. 그 불연속성의 근거는 무엇보다도 창세기 5:3과 그 후에 이어서 전개되는 창세기 5장의 내용 자체이다. 하나님이 사람을 남자와 여자로 창조하신 것뿐만 아니라 그들을 축복하신 것은 창세기 5장의 주제가 근본적으로 생식/번식을 지향하고 있음을 지적하는데, “그들의 이름”을 아담이라고 부른 것(5:2)은 “자기 모양 곧 자기 형상과 같은 아들을 낳아 이름을 셋이라고 하”는 아담의 역할을 함의하고 있기 때문이다. 아담의 바로 이 생식과 작명의 행위는 하나님이 사람을 창조하실 때 그분 자신의 모양으로 사람을 만드시고 그들의 이름을 아담이라고 부르셨던 것과 같은 맥락인 것이다(5:1b-2). 그러나 이 연속성에도 불구하고 불연속성도 나타나는 곳이 바로 여기 창세기 5:3인데, 그것은 창세기 5:1중-2이 교차대구적 상응을 그 시작과 끝에서 함으로써 독립적인 단락의 경계를 정하는 듯이 보이는 것에 이미 암시된 사실이다. 그 불연속성은, 창세기 5:3에서 언급되는 “셋”이라는 이름이 가인에 의한 아벨의 죽음과 관련하여 작명되었기에(4:25) 죽음을 암시하는 바, 아담의 범죄의 결과로 초래된 ‘하나님의 형상으로 창조된 인... Genesis 5:1-3 is, for the most part, essentially an echo of Genesis 1:26-28. As if never percieving it, however, the Korean versions of the Bible undesirably render Genesis 5:1-3, and there is no consistency in the translations. So this paper first aims to correct the undesirable renderings in the Korean versions, to give consistency to the translations, and also to correct the renderings of Genesis 1:26a, 27 in the process of this research. In light of the Hebrew text in the BHS (Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia), I proceeded with this study specifically by paying attention to the translation of ~l,c,. (“image”) and tWmדְּ (“likeness”), בְּ (“in”) and כְּ (“after, according to”), and hf'[' (“make”) and ar'B' (“create”), and also to the consistency of their respective translations. The second goal of this study is to perceive the function of Genesis 5:1-3 in consideration of its continuity and discontinuity with Genesis 1:26a, 27. I proceeded with this research from a synchronic/literary perspective, with Genesis 1:26a, 27 and 5:1-3 as the texts in their final form, and a detailed exegesis of the texts was excluded. As the result of this research, I pointed out up to eight kinds of unsatisfactory renderings in Genesis 1:26a, 27 and 5:1-3 occurring in six Korean versions of the Bible, which are related to the translation of ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ, בְּ and כְּ, and hf'[' and ar'B', to the consistency in translations, and to the literary aspects of parallelism and chiasm. As for the understanding of the function of Genesis 5:1-3, both perceiving its close relationship with Genesis 1:26a, 27 and understanding the nature of the relationship are needed, as is clearly shown in the exquisite structures made by ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ, by בְּ and כְּ coupled with ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ, and by hf'[' and ar'B'. The chiastic structure that ~l,c,. and tWmדְּ in Genesis 1:26a, 27 and 5:1, 3 make, however, hints at the latter’s continuity and discontinuity with the former. The discontinuity is that the image of God is almost lost through the Fall, and the continuity is that the trace of the image still remains in humans, and the basis for the discontinuity lies in Genesis 5:3 and the following verses of Genesis 5. Not only God’s creating mankind male and female, but also His blessing them, points to the basic theme of Genesis 5 as procreation, because the calling of Adam as “their name” (5:2) connotes the role of Adam to beget “in his likeness, according to his image” and to call “his name Seth” (5:3). Adam’s activities of procreation and naming are in the same vein with God’s activities of making mankind “in the likeness of God” when He created them (5:1b-2). In spite of this continuity, discontinuity also appears in Genesis 5:3, which is already hinted at in that Genesis 5:1b-2 seems to delimit itself as an independent pericope by the chiastic correspondence of its beginning to its end. As the name “Seth” itself in Genesis 5:3 hints at death because of his being named in relation to Abel’s death by Cain, the discontinuity is the ‘death of mankind created in the image of God’ as the consequence of Adam’s Fall. The discontinuity begins to be made clear in the record of Genesis 5 that “Adam ... died” (5:4-5) and is made very clear in the death of his son Seth (5:8) and of all his succeeding descendants. Last but not least is the significance of Genesis 5, which is revealed in the following broader context of Genesis—more specifically in the structural and thematic correspondence of the Genesis record of Noah with that of Abraham, and the similarity of Genesis 5:32 to 11:26. Just as Noah is the remnant (7:23b) who opens the history of the ‘New World,’ having come from the corrupt ‘Old World,’ so Abraham is the remnant who opens the history of the new people Israel (cf. 12:1-5), having come from the rebellious nations. Especially Genesis 5:32 which ...

Old Testament Eco-theology from the Perspective of Righteousness and Justice

하계상 연세대학교 신과대학 연합신학대학원 2017 신학논단 Vol.90 No.-

As clearly shown in this research, we have to see the Old Testament eco-theology from the perspective of righteousness and justice. And the two Hebrew verbs rādâ (“have dominion, rule”) and kābaš (“subdue”) have a totally different connotation from what Lynn White, Jr. and his followers contended for. The Hebrew verbs are shown to have the connotation of “rule with righteousness and justice.” “Tender Loving Care”64) must be the proper attitude of humans toward nature. Just as the principle of God’s rule over the whole created order is righteousness and justice which are the essence of His character, so humans entrusted by God to rule over nature should reflect the very principle of God’s rule, that is, His character (cf. Gen 18:19; Prov 12:10a; Isa 55:1). We learned to know that such a fact is clearly shown in the laws and institutions of the Old Testament. We came to realize, therefore, that it is a right approach for us to find the solutions to the ecological crisis in the Bible, with which we are confronted today. We ought to take the ecological crisis seriously, to listen to what the Bible says about our responsibility to nature, ultimately about a change of our hearts,65) and then to act out our ecological responsibility with a changed heart to the utmost of our power and wisdom bestowed by God the Creator.

古典動力學的인 方法에 依한 有限깊이의 물에서의 船體運動에 關한 考察 (其二)

河啓常 서울産業大學校 1982 논문집 Vol.16 No.1

熔接部의 疲勞破壞 및 疲勞强度 增加 方法에 關한 考察

河啓常 서울産業大學校 1982 논문집 Vol.17 No.1

The characteristics of the fatigue fracture, fatigue tests and the influencing factors on the endurance limit were surveyed, and after the various methods to improve the fatigue strength of welded joints being analyzed on the basis of the results which had been obrained by other investigators they were compared by the author in this paper.

신정론적 관점에서 본 아케다(the Aqedah): 최종 형태의 본문으로서의 창세기 22장 1-19절 새로 읽기

하계상 한국구약학회 2014 구약논단 Vol.20 No.4

창세기 22:1-19의 아케다는 아브라함 사이클의 다른 장들, 창세기 15-18장뿐만 아니라 특히 창세기 12, 17, 그리고 21장과 밀접한 관계를 갖고 있음이 밝혀졌다. 창세기 12장이 아브라함의 신앙 여정의 시작이고 22장이 그 여정의 절정이라면, 아브라함 사이클의 주된 신학적 주제들이나 사상들의 궤적이 당연히 창세기 22장에 수렴될 것이다. 그러나 유감스럽게도 거의 모든 학자들이 그런 점들을 충분히 반영하여 창세기 22:1-19을 해석하지 못했다. 게다가 아브라함에게 왜 아케다의 경험이 필요했는지 그 이유를 아브라함 사이클에서 찾아보고자 노력한 학자도 거의 없다. 그 결과 아브라함 사이클을 전체적으로 조망하면서 ‘아브라함에게 왜 아케다의 경험이 있어야 했는가?’라는 의문에 대한 답을 제시하는 동시에 아브라함의 인생 여정을 결산하는 의미에서 아케다를 해석한 연구가 전혀 없다. 본 연구는 아브라함의 영적 오디세이와 관련하여 하나님께 던져졌거나 던져질 신정론적 도전으로부터 아케다의 이유와 원인을 아브라함 사이클과 그 관련 본문들에서 찾아 궁극적으로 아케다를 이해하는 것이 그 목적이다. 이 연구는 주로 공시적/문학적 방법에 의해 이루어졌으며, 아케다 자체에 대한 주석은 필요에 따라 부분적으로 간략하게 했다. 이 연구의 결과들은 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다. 첫째, 아브라함 사이클은 하나님과 아브라함 사이의 언약이 그 중심에 있는 교차대구 구조를 이루고 있으므로, 아케다는 언약과 관련해서 해석되어야 한다. 둘째, 아브라함은 그의 말과 행위들을 통하여 하나님의 언약 약속들, 특히 완전한 보호의 약속과 후사에 대한 약속에 대해 불신을 나타냄으로써 하나님께 대한 전적인 신뢰를 보여주지 못했다. 아브라함은 그의 영적 여행 직후에 있었던 애굽에서의 사건(12:10-20)과 그의 여정의 절정 바로 직전에 있었던 그랄에서의 사건(20:1-18)을 통해 하나님의 완전한 보호의 약속에 대해 불신을 나타냈다. 무엇보다도 아브라함 사이클의 두 초점(창 15장과 17장) 사이에서 사라의 말을 듣고/순종하고 하갈을 아내로 취함으로써(16:2) 후사에 대한 하나님의 약속을 그가 결정적으로 불신하고 있음을 나타냈다. 셋째, 아브라함이 이런 식으로 언약에 불충실함에도 불구하고 하나님은 언약의 약속들을 지키시며 계속해서 그를 보호하시고 구원하시며 심지어 그를 축복하셨다. 외견상의 이 부당한 대우가 아브라함 사이클과 관련해서 하나님께 던져졌거나 던져질 신정론적 도전의 원인이며, 언약에 대한 아브라함의 불충실이 그가 아케다를 경험해야 했던 이유이다. 아케다는, 하나님이 아브라함을 시험하시고 그에게 하나님께 대한 전적인 믿음을 보일 마지막 기회를 주심으로써 그러한 신정론적 도전에 응하시는 하나님의 답변이다. 넷째, 하나님의 말씀을 듣고/순종하고 영적인 순례를 시작했듯이(12:4a), 아브라함은 하나님의 목소리를 들음으로써/순종함으로써 그의 순례의 절정에 이르렀다(22:18b; cf. 26:5a). 그의 결정적인 믿음의 순종에 근거하여 하나님은 아브라함과 언약을 갱신하셨을 뿐만 아니라 이전보다 훨씬 더 광범위하면서도 구체적인 언약의 약속들을 주셨다. 마지막이지만 아주 중요한 것은, 창세기 22:1-19의 아케다는 아브라함의 불신의 죄들을 사랑으로 징계하고 희생 제물로 대속하는 동시에 아브라함의 믿음을 시험하여 그 진정성과 의연함을 드러내는 하나님 ... It has been noted that Gen 22:1-19, the so-called Aqedah, has close relationships with other chapters in the Abraham cycle, not only with Genesis 12, 17, and 21, but also with Genesis 15-18. Genesis 12 is the beginning of Abraham’s spiritual journey and Genesis 22 is its climax, and thus the trajectories of the main theological themes or concepts in the cycle naturally converge in Genesis 22. Unfortunately, however, almost all the scholars have interpreted Genesis 22:1-19, without fully reflecting on such aspects. Besides, there is hardly any scholar who has tried to find out the reason in the cycle why Abraham needed the experience of the Aqedah. As a result, there has never been any research to interpret, in the light of the Abraham cycle as a whole, the Aqedah in terms of the evaluation of his life journey, as well as to answer the question why the Aqedah was a necessity for him. The purpose of this research is to find out in the cycle and its related texts the whys and wherefores of the Aqedah from a theodicean challenge to God, which was (or will be) made concerning Abraham’s spiritual odyssey, and ultimately to understand the Aqedah. The research was done mainly with a synchronic/literary approach, and an exegesis of the Aqedah itself was partially and briefly made, when necessary. The results may be recapitulated as follows:First, the Abraham cycle makes a chiastic structure with the covenant between God and Abraham centered in it, and thus the Aqedah should be interpreted in relation to the covenant. Second, Abraham did not show his full trust in God through his words and actions, which reveal his disbelief in God’s covenant promises, especially the promise of full protection for him and that of his offspring. The incidents in Egypt (12:10-20; right after the start of his spiritual journey) and in Gerar (20:1-18; just before the climax of the journey) show his disbelief in God’s promise of full protection for him. Above all things, the incident of his taking Hagar as a wife by hearing/obeying Sarah (16:2; between the two foci [Gen 15 and 17] of the Abraham cycle) reveals his distrust in God’s promise of his offspring. Third, even though in this way Abraham was not faithful to the covenant, God continued to protect, save, and even bless him by keeping His covenant promises. This apparent injustice must be the cause of a theodicean challenge to God which was (or will be) made in relation to Abraham’s spiritual odyssey, and his unfaithfulness to the covenant was the reason for his experience of the Aqedah. The Aqedah was God’s answer to such a theodicean challenge by testing Abraham and thus giving him the last opportunity to show his full trust in Him. Fourth, just as Abraham started his spiritual journey by hearing/obeying God (Gen 12:4a), so he climaxes the journey by hearing/obeying God’s voice (22:18b; cf. 26:5a). Because of his decisive obedience of faith, God renewed the covenant with Abraham, the promises of which are wider and more specific by far than before (22:15-18). Last but not least, the Aqedah of Genesis 22:1-19 is essentially the story of God, who by testing Abraham revealed the genuineness and fortitude of his faith, and also lovingly disciplined Abraham for his sins of disbelief, redeeming him with a sacrifice.

창세기 2-3장의 히브리어아롬(~Ar['), 아룸(~Wr['), 에롬(~roy[e):그 의미들과 번역들, 그리고 그 절묘한 언어유희의 의도

하계상 한국구약학회 2013 구약논단 Vol.19 No.4

The Creation account of Genesis 2 and the Fall account of Genesis 3 are not only naturally related to each other but also dramatically contrasted by a rhetorical technique called paronomasia as shown in the three Hebrew terms `ārôm (~Ar[', 2:25), `ārûm (~Wr[', 3:1), and `êrôm (~roy[e, 3:7, 10, 11). Unfortunately, however, this fact has been misinterpreted, as well as totally or partially overlooked. The purpose of this research was to investigate the usage of the three Hebrew terms in the Old Testament, to decide their meanings in each of their contexts, to check the suitability of their translations, and finally to perceive the intention shown in the delicate wordplay the three Hebrew words create. The research was done mainly from the synchronic/literary perspective, while keeping in mind possible changes in their meanings through the ages. The results can be recapitulated as follows:First, the Hebrew term `ārûm employed for the description of the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is used obviously with a positive connotation and thus should not be translated as “cunning” or “subtle,” but “clever” or “wise.” The usage of `ārûm in Genesis 3:1 may be a double entendre, connoting not only the “wise” serpent as the instrument of the Fall but also the “cunning” Tempter who made the serpent his instrument. In that case, however, there is no way to translate it suitably. Second, the Hebrew term `êrôm (pl. `êrummîm) used in describing the post-Fall Adam and his wife in Genesis 3:7, 10, 11 means ‘complete nakedness’ of shame and humiliation, with genitals exposed, of which the meaning is clearly shown in Genesis 3 itself, and especially in Ezekiel 16:7 and 23:29, and thus it should be properly translated as “naked” or “nude.”Third, the Hebrew term `ārôm, chosen to describe the pre-Fall Adam and his wife predominantly connotes ‘partial nakedness’ in other contexts, but not ‘total nakedness,’ and thus should be contextually translated as “lightly dressed,” “poorly clothed,” or “in undergarments only.” The word `ārôm (pl. `arûmmīm) in Genesis 2:25 has been interpreted to mean their pre-Fall childlike innocence, but it rather seems to portray their being clothed with light, being in the “image of God,” just as God wraps Himself with light as with a garment (Ps 104:2). However, their robe of light must have departed forever soon after the Fall, and consequently they became `êrôm (pl. `êrumîm), that is, completely “naked.” Therefore, the translation “naked” is not suitable for depicting their being clothed with light, but there is no proper translation of this word that denotes “robe of light.”Last but not least, the reason for employing `ārûm in Genesis 3:1 instead of ḥāḵām (~kx, “clever, wise”) or śākal (lk;f', “be prudent, have insight”) must be for the rhetorical technique of the wordplay that it makes with `arûmmīm (sg. `ārôm) in 2:25 and `êrummîm (sg. `êrôm) in 3:7, 10, 11. The paronomasia that `ārôm (pl. `arûmmīm, Gen 2:25), `ārûm (3:1), and `êrôm (pl. `êrummîm, 3:7, 10, 11) make may be intended to bring into prominence the point of departure for the tragic event of the Fall, dramatically contrasting the pre-Fall human appearance (`ārôm) with the post-Fall human appearance (`êrôm), as well as naturally connecting the Creation account in Genesis 2 with the Fall account in Genesis 3. 본 논문은 창세기 2-3장의 히브리어 아롬(~Ar['), 아룸(~Wr[), 에롬(~roy[e)에 대한 어휘 연구를 통해 그 정확한 번역들을 제시하고, 그 언어유희의 의도를 파악하는데 그 목적을 둔다. 필자는 시대적 흐름에 따른 의미 변화의 유무를 염두에 두면서도 주로 공시적/문학적 관점에서 연구를 진행함으로써 에롬을 제외하고 아롬과 아룸은 기존의 번역들을 재고해야 할 필요성을 발견하고 그 언어유희의 의도를 파악한다.

이사야 52:13-53:12을 중심으로 살펴본 이사야 1-55장의 신학

하계상 삼육대학교 신학연구소 2010 신학과 학문 Vol.- No.17

古典動力學的인 方法에 依한 有限깊이의 물에서의 船體運動에 關한 考察(其一)

河啓常 서울産業大學校 1981 논문집 Vol.15 No.1

Classical dynamic approaches that Wang, Loukakis an Sclavounos have used in regular oblique waves of infinite depth, are applied by the author to the ship motions in regular oblique waves of finite depth. New terms which are not existed in the previous theories, are obtained in the hydrodynamic coefficients, exciting forces and moments. In heave and pitch, the amplitude of motion responses show better agreement with the experiment by Takaki in the low frequency range than Takaki's theoretical results and Hwang and Rhew's.

창세기 2-3장의 히브리어 아롬, 아룸, 에롬

하계상(KyeSang Ha) 한국구약학회 2013 구약논단 Vol.19 No.4

본 논문은 창세기 2-3장의 히브리어 아롬(~Ar['), 아룸(~Wr[), 에롬(~roy[e)에 대한 어휘 연구를 통해 그 정확한 번역들을 제시하고, 그 언어유희의 의도를 파악하는데 그 목적을 둔다. 필자는 시대적 흐름에 따른 의미 변화의 유무를 염두에 두면서도 주로 공시적/문학적 관점에서 연구를 진행함으로써 에롬을 제외하고 아롬과 아룸은 기존의 번역들을 재고해야 할 필요성을 발견하고 그 언어유희의 의도를 파악한다. The Creation account of Genesis 2 and the Fall account of Genesis 3 are not only naturally related to each other but  also dramatically contrasted by a rhetorical technique called paronomasia as shown in the three Hebrew terms `ārôm  (~Ar[', 2:25), `ārûm (~Wr[', 3:1), and `êrôm (~roy[e, 3:7, 10, 11). Unfortunately, however, this fact has been  misinterpreted, as well as totally or partially overlooked. The purpose of this research was to investigate the usage of the three Hebrew terms in the Old Testament, to decide  their meanings in each of their contexts, to check the suitability of their translations, and finally to perceive the  intention shown in the delicate wordplay the three Hebrew words create. The research was done mainly from the  synchronic/literary perspective, while keeping in mind possible changes in their meanings through the ages. The  results can be recapitulated as follows:First, the Hebrew term `ārûm employed for the description of the serpent in  Genesis 3:1 is used obviously with a positive connotation and thus should not be translated as “cunning” or “subtle,”  but “clever” or “wise.” The usage of `ārûm in Genesis 3:1 may be a double entendre, connoting not only the “wise”  serpent as the instrument of the Fall but also the “cunning” Tempter who made the serpent his instrument. In that  case, however, there is no way to translate it suitably. Second, the Hebrew term `êrôm (pl. `êrummîm) used in describing the post-Fall Adam and his wife in Genesis 3:7, 10,  11 means ‘complete nakedness’ of shame and humiliation, with genitals exposed, of which the meaning is clearly  shown in Genesis 3 itself, and especially in Ezekiel 16:7 and 23:29, and thus it should be properly translated as “naked ” or “nude.”Third, the Hebrew term `ārôm, chosen to describe the pre-Fall Adam and his wife predominantly connotes  ‘partial nakedness’ in other contexts, but not ‘total nakedness,’ and thus should be contextually translated as “lightly  dressed,” “poorly clothed,” or “in undergarments only.” The word `ārôm (pl. `arûmmīm) in Genesis 2:25 has been  interpreted to mean their pre-Fall childlike innocence, but it rather seems to portray their being clothed with light, being  in the “image of God,” just as God wraps Himself with light as with a garment (Ps 104:2). However, their robe of light  must have departed forever soon after the Fall, and consequently they became `êrôm (pl. `êrumîm), that is,  completely “naked.” Therefore, the translation “naked” is not suitable for depicting their being clothed with light, but  there is no proper translation of this word that denotes “robe of light.”Last but not least, the reason for employing  `ārûm in Genesis 3:1 instead of ḥāḵām (~kx, “clever, wise”) or śākal (lk;f', “be prudent, have insight”) must be for the  rhetorical technique of the wordplay that it makes with `arûmmīm (sg. `ārôm) in 2:25 and `êrummîm (sg. `êrôm) in 3:7,  10, 11. The paronomasia that `ārôm (pl. `arûmmīm, Gen 2:25), `ārûm (3:1), and `êrôm (pl. `êrummîm, 3:7, 10, 11) make  may be intended to bring into prominence the point of departure for the tragic event of the Fall, dramatically  contrasting the pre-Fall human appearance (`ārôm) with the post-Fall human appearance (`êrôm), as well as naturally  connecting the Creation account in Genesis 2 with the Fall account in Genesis 3.