I guess when I read that passage (Genesis 2:7: “The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”-NET), it plays out kind of like a scene from Frankenstein (only less creepy—maybe Pinocchio is a better example) in my mind. The man is formed from the dust, but is lifeless and limp, and so God breathes the breath of life into him—and the man springs into action.

The commentary on this passage at http://www.bible.org/netbible/ indicates that the word for ‘breath’ used in this part of the narrative is unique to human beings (and is tied to having a conscience). I see no reason however, to read more into that than the common-sensical observation that humans are more mentally complex than animals: we are spiritually inclined, and do in fact have consciences. I maintain that these are possible without seeing the soul as non-physical. The fact that only resurrection (vs. some sort of disembodied ‘heaven’), of some kind, is on the uttermost horizon of the OT writers’ worldview leads me (and others) to think that our traditional (non-physical) view of the soul owes more to Platonism than to Scripture.

But I could be wrong. :-)