Difference between Strong's 120 and 121?

[Jemoh66]

It's really interesting to read through the first few chapters of Genesis.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” . . . , and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature . . . The man gave names to all . . . , but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
The man said,

There may be warrant to see אדם as a proper name in the Hebrew text. Notice how the translators of the NASB translate the אדם of verse 20. The context supports this. Notice כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו, suitable to him (twice, v18 and v20). The singular masculine possessive suffix does not incline one to the alternative,i.e. mankind. Compare Gen 1:27,

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Here אֹתָֽם reinforces this.

This verse supports the translation, mankind.

Since this seems quite plausible, it is not inappropriate for Strong to have turned these into two separate entries, as they are different categories: one a noun, the other a proper noun.

Lastly, on a personal note, it would seem odd for "the man" to remain nameless, while "the woman" is named Chawwah. Although the idea of him being nameless is intriguing.

Jonathan Mohler

[Galena]

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” . . . , and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature . . . The man gave names to all . . . , but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

Jonathan Mohler

At the risk of bordering on the pedantic I would like to point out that ..."but for Adam"..... could accurately be translated as ...."but for man"... Adam here is really just a transliteration, like any other proper noun or name in scripture. For example Eliyahu is just a translation and is meaningless to the whole world other than a hebrew listener, it tells us nothing and the English translators should have conveyed its intention, ie, the Lord is my God. There is no awkwardness in style to say that: ....and he was called 'the Lord is my God''.... since this is the intention of the person naming the child and this is how any hebrew listener would have understood it, not as meaningless gabble. And so Adam is a transliteration but is inappropriate for scriptural accuracy but certainly not erroneous. Thus endeth my pedantic speech
kind regards Jonathan