Talk:Amen

If "Amen" is not used in Neopaganism/ Freemasonry, why is it included in the article? Why not remove the redirect and put the "So mote it be" section as a separate article? --70.179.2.77 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen for wikipedia

Pronunciation

I pondered how Amen should be pronounced. I was raised to pronounce the word [aːmɛn], but some people pronounce it [eːmɛn]. Can I get some clarity over that? --Stevo the Human 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian Origin

is it not true Amen comes directly from Amen-RA.. thereby from acient Kemet?

I noticed that this section was removed from the article: The origin of the word Amen is Egyptian. Amen (or Amun) was the name of an Egyptian god, who at one point was one of the most important. The Jews learned about Amen during their slavery in Egypt and incorporated the word into their language, eventually giving it its current meaning.

Amen is the dora of Amen-Ra[1] , seems it's quite possibly the linguistic origin of the word and must be explored/mentioned in some way, but I've no definitive source making this claim off hand more solid than 'that's what they taught us in Sunday school at the UU'... Anyone else find something?

Best I can do is this fairly extensive page on the subject: http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/amen.html

Also intersting, it comes up in this meaning of names database: http://www.weddingvendors.com/baby-names/meaning/amen/

Some pharoah's also prefixed their name's with Amen (Amenhotep and Amenophis, for instance), and with Jesus calling Himself, "the Amen, the faithful and true witness." in Revelations 3:14 it's given Egyptian meaning of "Personification of the power of the universe and God" has relevence to several divinity debates... Perhaps a "Possible Pagan Origins" section should be added?

This copyrighted article ( http://www.free-minds.org/amen.htm ) seems to be writen by a muslim advocating against the use of 'amen' because of it's Egyptian pagan origin.

The similarity of the Hebrew word for "So be it" and the name of an Egyptian god is simply a coincidence. The Russian word for "God" is "Bog", but that does not mean that the Russians worship bogs. :) --FOo 03:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, given the proximity and relationship between the ancient Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian cultures, in addition to the usage of the word in Revelations 3:14, in, apparently, the old kemet meaning.

Hebrew and ancient Egyptian are not closely related languages. Hebrew and Arabic are closely related, though, and Arabic has the cognate word ameen or amin which is used in the same way as Hebrew amen. Can you cite any independent scholarship -- by which I mean peer-reviewed scholarship, not some guy with a Web site -- for the "pagan origin" conjecture? --FOo 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if Hebrew and Kemet are not closely related languages, it seems in an upwards of 2000 years of close cultural relations, both voluntary and involuntary; they may have picked up a word or two. Just my opinion, of course. Also, the first thing they tell you that you need to learn, if want to try to interpret hieroglyphs, is Arabic - so they may not be that distant after all. --69.110.135.14 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Thothie

Currently the only epistemological references I can find that point to Egypt are Funk and Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary and and Smith's Bible Dictionary. Searching on the internet for something like this is difficult, however, as it is simply full of people claiming that Amen is a word of kemet origin with no references. This is either used by pagans, apparently making fun of Christians - although even more often, by Muslims and Christians attempting to strike the word from their religion based on it's possible pagan origins.

The sheer number of hits seems to make refining an internet search for the subject beyond my ability, I'll have to head over to the university library to do some serious research on the subject, when next I get the chance.

None-the-less, the fact that the debate is so common, seems it would bare mentioning in this article.

It's also worth mentioning that Buddhists and Hindus use this phrase as well, in the same way Christians do, even if it may simply be a case of cultural contamination / westernization (I've seen it here, but I'm sure it's less common in the east).

Finally, 'So mote it be' - seems to have been created by neo-Paganists in direct opposition to this word. So it also bares mentioning, and linking to any such Wikipedia entry. --69.110.135.14 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Daniel

I'm not sure how well you understand the languages involved, but, basically, the Egyptian god is or ỉmn, and the Semitic word is אמן/امين or Template:Semxlit. One issue is the use of the Egyptian letter ỉ, which has no counterpart in any Semitic orthography. Also, its transliteration as the A in Amun is not certain, but based on the Greek representation of the name, which used the letter alpha to represent it. Thus, we are left with two very distantly related language groups, and in each there is a word spelled *mn (where * is a wildcard) with different meanings. To say that the link between them is obvious is to misunderstand the issues involved. Basically, this will remain conjecture unless a manuscript is discovered that explicitly relates the two words. — Gareth Hughes 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary (which I believe is usually taken to be an authority on such matters) does not make any mention of a possible Egyptian origin for the work. Thus, I suspect that there is not a great deal of scholarship to support that idea, at least not enough for Oxford to consider it worth mentioning. I myself don't have enough knowledge to make an educated guess as to the origin of "amen", but I thought it worth mentioning all the same... CMcQueeny

In my Hieroglyphs class at Brown we were taught that the vowels are generally random in transliteration of Egyptian and there for without a cross reference to a language we understand phonetically there is not way to tell how to pronounce a word. However I think it is clear as mentioned above that, the word Amen and the name of the god are so close that there can be little dispute over the similarity. As mentioned above as well some people say Amen and some say Aman etc and so even today we can not decide how to pronounce the word. Also given the fact that the Jewish people were in Egypt at the given time there is not reason to believe that they did not pick the word up. Further evidence may be that Amun was not a pagan god necessarily, Amun was a monotheist god. Much of the symbolism we use in Christianity today from the cross to the halos around the reads of saints comes from ancient Egypt. The ten commandments are almost written word for word from the book of the dead. there seems to have been plenty of cultural exchange and it may not be far out to suggest from my research, that some of the ideas of the one God today originated with Amun in Ancient Egypt and that would be why we carry his/her name on in prayer today.I think that it is at least worth a mention in the article at least as speculation ~Jase 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. This 'amen'-'Amun' link is purely derived from the fact that the words look and sound alike in English. The first letter in Egyptian and Hebrew is different, and there is no evidence whatsoever to link the two words. The arguments here presented are flimsy ponderings rather than offers of any evidence in the slightest. This is yet another case where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. — Gareth Hughes 23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to you separately below, but on this point, the little knowledge you refer to might well apply to what is known within the Hebrew tradition of the origin of the word. Reading the article at the moment it looks rather woolly: "can be read as an acronym, is etymologically related to". It's this which invites speculation. The article also lacks an explanation of its use, and meaning, in Islam.

Further you write: "This 'amen'-'Amun' link is purely derived from the fact that the words look and sound alike in English." This rather undermines your own argument, if I may say, as no-one disputes that Amen in Christianity as expressed in various languages unrelated to Hebrew and to one another nonetheless derives from its use in Judaism. All there is to persuade the objective observer of the connection is the 'look and sound alike' aspect and cultural contiguity. And to be frank, this is all that some argue in respect of Egypt. Hakluyt bean 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian vowels are interchangable, hence why there is meaning but know speech discernable from hyroglyphs. Amen has no definition because it is simply the name of God said after a prayer. That God is the God of Abraham, Amun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrol^7 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish pronunciation

Why was the sentence about the Jewish pronunciation of the word removed? I think people not familiar with Judaism would find that interesting. -- Mwalcoff 02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see I accidentally put a signature after it. I restored the sentence without the signature. -- Mwalcoff 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anyone? The etymology of the word please. Amen-RA, atum, Adam, Aum? Please Help!

It's a sensitive and not straightforward subject, as seen below. Hakluyt bean 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of source

I have looked at the background of this word, and in my opinion, it is derived from the egyptian god, Amen...and resistance to the acknowledged source, is a christian requirement, ala...defense of the works, to keep the source pure, lest the inclusion of another god, in the christian book, would be infer the book may not be an original source....but merely a jumble of other fables, stories, and other gods.....

Any citations from your research you would care to share? Did your sources took other semitic language cognates into account? Also, it would be nice to sign your posts. Wesley 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from V'Imru

Please merge relevant content, if any, from V'Imru per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V'Imru. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 06:02Z

Egyptian cultural aspects of Hebraic religiosity

How anyone can state that Amen of ancient Egypt is not directly related to the Hebraic Amen is beyond belief. Their very god YHWH יהוה‎ aka Jehovah owes it's origin to Ancient Egyptian roots and their worship of the crescent moon deity Yah/Iah. Practically all of their cultural rituals, customs and aspects are traceable to Ancient Egypt, in particular the Khonsu braid that Orthodox Jewish men wear. This resistance overall serves as more proof of the zealot religious control that has over taken Wikipeida and has marginally corrupted it's genius of thought. Finally, all of this is easily verifiable by referencing the works of a plethora of respected Egyptologists from Gerald Massey to Faulkner. Why is this important cultural aspect then not included on this page? The reasoning given thus far was created by a layman whose apparent religious agenda is as obvious as it is subsisting, with concise biblical quotations from the book of Revelations ignored.

Gerald Massey wrote in "The Historical Jesus and The Mythical Christ" on page 16

"'Amen' in Revelations is a title of the God AΩ; and in Egyptian both Amen and Iu mean 'come,' 'to come' the 'coming one'. Iu(Eg.) was originally written aa. and the pyramid or Triangleis aa by name. As a triangle this sign is threefold, as a pyramid it unites the square and triangle and is sevenfold, therefore it could be a sign of the ten-total, which was also figured thusas a pyramidal then by the Pythagoreans, an image of the All composed of seven elementary forces expressed in threefold human form. The Name could be uttered by a single sound or sign as it was by the Hebrew Jad=10, or two hands; the Egyptian pyramid the Chinese Δ, the British Cyfriu, /I\ (A, I, still, at Lloyds) or the Coptic I with inherent U, which has the numeral value of 10. This was a mode of expressing the representative of divine Unity (comprising the seven elementary powers, together with the human trinity, in a ten-total,) by one sign and a single sound; and this I, Δ, Iu, or AΩ, is a symbol of the name Iusu (i.e. Iu the duplicative or dual one), the Greek Iesous, as the AΩ in Revelation. The pyramid (triangula) is the letter A in stellar form; and the divinity Har-khuti, Har-Sebti the Iu, AΩ, or Iao is the primary one - answering to the A at the head of the alphabet - who as the child or son Su (Eg.) is Iusu, Iesous, Iso, or Jesus. The name of Horus (Har, Eg.) also has the meaning of No. 10, and Har-khuti of the Seven Lights is the God One=ten, of the triangle (trinity) and pyramid (hebdomad, the symbol of the three and the seven. Lastly, this God One=tree=seven=ten, whose title was at length expressed by the first and final letter of the Greek alphabet, AΩ, is the pubescent male who was born of the virgin mother without the fatherhood, third in advent, but placed first in series, as the representative of all the powers, whose natural genesis has been traced to lunar phenomena, and who in the solar mythos was the opponent and vanquisher of the Beast with ten horns, which represented the total of the opposing Typhoninan powers."

I propose the above quote by renowned Egyptologist Gerald Massey is more than enough evidence to implicate this page as errant. Nuwaubian Hotep 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure whether we're supposed to take this stuff seriously. If yes, then reading a Victorian egyptologist linking Hebrew, Chinese, Egyptian and Insular Celtic is more a game of look-alike than serious academic endeavour. — Gareth Hughes 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I share your concern at the dangers of folk etymology (see the Hiberno-English Talk page) and note your remarks further up, but it is not a purely etymological question. A cultural question would be: does a few hundred years of co-existence leave a mark? And the answer, as in many issues of 'nationalism' or assertions of unique identity is resolutely NO. However, the common sense answer would be, well probably, Yes. Whether it's persuading Americans that baseball originates in Britain, or this. I wish there was a way of representing that argument in grown-up terms here on WP, to acknowledge that there is often this sort of impasse. In this case however, whether you would couch the particular example in terms of Victorian eccentricity or whatever, it is a citation that User:Nuwaubian Hotep has provided, so I don't see a reason for exclusion. I suspect also there are better ones. I'd also note, and it would probably also be possible to cite, that assertions of unique identity cut both ways, and one can often find in the context of Egyptology assertions of the sort made above, and made just as casually as they are readily denied by others. Hakluyt bean 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I reply to both posts. אמן is a Hebrew word and there are cognate roots in other Semitic languages. As a word it has a full range of derived forms according to the standard rules of Hebrew morphology. This is quite different to 'Amen' as a word in the English language, where it is a loanword with few real derived forms (i.e. 'to amen', 'amens' and 'amening', while they make sense, are somewhat artificial nonces). The word is known to have had a long heritage in Jewish prayer — from Torah to the present day — the Jewish background of Christianity is seen by a number of Hebrew/Aramaic loanwords (sometimes their designation to a particular language is impossible) in early Christian literature. 'Amen' is one of these loanwords. So, the history of the word from Hebrew to other languages is quite clear. What is at question is its earlier history: the suggestion is that it is an Egyptian loanword into Hebrew. Because the word has Semitic cognates, it is likely to be derived from Proto-Semitic rahter than any other source. The use of the word in Hebrew does not require any external intervention to acquire its classical meaning. Thus, it would be illogical to posit one without evidence. The only link between the Egyptian word ỉmn and the Hebrew word אמן is that they have two letters in common. On a similar basis the Doge of Venice might have be so named because of the popularity of English dogs in Venice. That two three-letter words in two different languages share two of their letters is not evidence in favour of a shared etymology. It does not rule out a common root, but it would be foolish to suggest one when there is no need for one (the history is firmly established) and there is no other compelling evidence for this weak theory. — Gareth Hughes 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gareth you haven't addressed as of yet (although it's been mentioned several times) the direct inference to the term "Amen" described as the deity in the book of Revelations 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" Nuwaubian Hotep 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This text makes complete sense within the context of the work. I do not see any need to say that this is a reference to an Egyptian deity. It is really a giant leap from this text to what you want to mean. I cannot take this line of reasoning seriously. — Gareth Hughes 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article defines the term "Amen" as a colloquialism to mean "truly" or "so be it", but clearly Revelations 3:14 is an definitive article that describes a deity of which is seen as a title for Jesus. A reference to this verse defining "The Amen" and it's use should be mentioned apart from the colloquial definition within the article page, don't you agree? In this way the article would be complete at least from the Hebraic stance until further evidence can be presented to prove it's obvious Khemetic origin. Nuwaubian Hotep 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies... I see the definitive article of the term Amen is listed within the article tab. Nuwaubian Hotep 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment:Amen and the Egyptian origin in Revelations 3:14

In this verse from the New Testament the word Amen is defined (as I have indicated) as a literal definitive article and not a colloquial term. The article page indicates that it is a name of Jesus but provides no etymology. Clearly here the conception that Amen in it's usage originated from ancient Egypt and in all fairness should be mentioned in the article page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuwaubian Hotep (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 July 2007.

Since you point to The Holy Bible as a reference, can you show me where exactly it mentions Egyptian etymology? Making that assumption without some sort of proof is in original research and it borders on being a fringe theory. Pats Sox Princess 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pats Sox Princess. No Egyptian connexion is suggested by any of the evidence raised. No one is buying this stuff. — Gareth Hughes 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FRINGE applies here. If the Massey text (quoted above) is deemed unreliable then this is not attributable.--ZayZayEM 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however there is far more evidence that what Massey has presented in that quote as my following statement indicates. Nuwaubian Hotep 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1st thing we need to look at is the mere fact that both the Egyptian and Semitic languages fall under the Afro-Asiatic language group, and both the Semitic and Egyptian cultures developed within the same region: the Eastern Horn of Africa. Surely, these cultures assimilated and interchanged cultural idioms. To deny this would only indicate religious zeal on your part. Secondly your “Holy Bible” states in Hosea 13:4: “Yet I [am] the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for [there is] no saviour beside me.” Which would indicate a strong affiliation of the Hebrew manner of worship originating and developing from ancient Egypt, ergo, the term Amen, or in this case the definitive article “the Amen” as used in the New Testament and in the book of Revelation can be associated simply by Egyptian definition. “Faithful” apropos “Jesus the Faithful”. Furthermore, this isn’t the only Egyptian/Semitic similarly. There is a plethora of seemingly Semitic original terms (from a Western cultural perspective) in your Holy Bible that are directly traceable and rooted in ancient Egypt, ex: Moses (Tut-Mosis), Christ (Karast), Jesus (Iah-Shu), Seth (Set), so forth and so on, there are far too many similarities to list here.

If you are going to reference the term “the Amen” (as you should) in the article page from the book of Revelations you should provide the etymology. There is none listed and given the proximity of both cultures and similarity of terms, the ancient Egypt connection should in the in least be implied. Nuwaubian Hotep 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No mainstream scholar believes this "theory" and Wikipedia is not a dump for your own original research. --Folantin 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the "dump" and frankly I didn't expect acceptance, I am simply judging. As far as mainstream scholars, there are a plethora of whom state this very same. I've already listed one. Nuwaubian Hotep 10:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Will there be comments from users who aren't zealots? I've listed the RFC in the historical section as well. Nuwaubian Hotep 10:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1979: "A magic word that was interpreted as "let it be" in Hebrew, and used to evoke divine response to a prayer. Such words frequently began as names of deities. Perhaps this may have originally invoked the Egyptian god Amun, "the Hidden One"—the sun in the belly of the Mother before sunrise. Its hieroglyphic symbol meant pregnant belly." (Author footnote, Book of the Dead, 194) Nuwaubian Hotep 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the above source, for what it's worth, is clearly from his own phrasing "[p]erhaps this may have..." (italics mine) distancing himself from the idea in question. While I could perhaps see such content being added to the introduction, or in a small separate section on the origins of the word, provided it does not receive undo weight, I would also think that, based on the above quotation, it should only be included in such a way as to make it clear that even the source cited doesn't give it a lot of credit. While here, however, I would like to note that the existing article does not contain any reference to the fact that the phrase "Amen amen" as in "Amen amen I say to you..." often used in the New Testament seems to have been a way for the Jews of the Biblical era to get around their prohibition to swearing in the name of God by creating an effective and recognized equivalent to such oaths. I don't have any direct sources for that right now, though. John Carter 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymolgy

I have tidied up, cited and added a new section about the word's etymology. I think it could do with more of an expansion though. -- Chris.B 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the footnote is repeated several times, there is but one reference in this section, and not a very authoritative one (looks like it's a posting on a website by a member of that site).

I think it is quite incorrect to say that "contemporarily [not] the least trace of the word Amen" can be found in Hebrew. Aside from the word being used in the context of prayer and colloquially to mean "so be it," 'amen' is cognate with such common words as ne'eman and ma'amin, which relate to trustworthiness and faith. All of these terms are ultimately derived from the Hebrew triliteral root 'mn.

There is no reason to assume that the word 'amen' is anything but native to Hebrew. Not only is its root Hebrew, but its grammatical form is not unusual in Biblical Hebrew, representing a stative verb (thus "so be it," or perhaps better, "it is so," or "it is in faith"). Other Modern Hebrew words also originate with the stative verbal form, tending to be used now as adjectives or nouns: e.g. 'kaved' (heavy) and 'shakhen' (neighbor). The claim that Biblical Hebrew borrowed 'amen' from Berber is as far fetched as claiming that Biblical Hebrew borrowed it from Latin. This section should be thoroughly revised.

—Hanina 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Just an interesting piece info about the word amen, the number 99, and ancient egypt. Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01407b.htm

"Finally, we may note that the word Amen occurs not infrequently in early Christian inscriptions, and that it was often introduced into anathemas and gnostic spells. Moreover, as the Greek letters which form Amen according to their numerical values total 99 (alpha=1, mu=40, epsilon=8, nu=50), this number often appears in inscriptions, especially of Egyptian origin, and a sort of magical efficacy seems to have been attributed to its symbol. It should also be mentioned that the word Amen is still employed in the ritual both of Jews and Mohammedans."

Written by Herbert Thurston. Transcribed by Carl Horst.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

I have posted the above info here because I do not know how to make changes to the article in the correct format. I hope this info provides useful. Raystauber (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting find Raystauber (if you are still around...), I haven't been to this talk page in awhile and I'm just reading this for the 1st time and was shocked that it's been overlooked. This revelation aligns itself marginally with the Gerald Massey's quote I posted earlier on this page equating and rooting the word Amen with a type of "Egyptian Gematria" origin with it's insertion into Hebraic text. Given it's authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia reference, this passage can assuredly serve to remove the citation for the Egyptian etymology sentence on the article page. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It tells us that the Greek letters add up to 99. This is true, but the article wrongly identifies the third letter in Greek as epsilon (which is number 5) rather than its true value of eta (which is 8). It tells us that the number 99 had magical significance in Egypt, and the word amen is used with magical significance today by some Jews and Muslims. However, the Greek word (as used in the Septuagint) clearly represents the Hebrew אמן, which is the number 91 or 1090, depending whether א is taken as 1 or 1000. A mistake in the text (writing epsilon instead of eta), and a vague reference to Egyptian magic using the same number (I can see 99 being quite popular all over the place!) doesn't make for a strong connexion in the slightest. The Catholic Encyclopedia is another on-line source that is a century old. No mention of Amun here. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gematria aspect (right or wrong) is not significant to this article. What's significant here is that this Catholic Encyclopedia reference defines Amen from early Christian Inscriptions, anathemas, and gnostic spells to be of "Egyptian origin". It is a scholastic source that should be cited as per Wikipedia guidelines. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Read it carefully. The text says "...this number often appears in inscriptions, especially of Egyptian origin...". The article isn't saying that amen is of Egyptian origin, or of its widespread use in pre-Christian Egypt (Egyptians had special graphs for numerals). The article says that the number 99 is found in inscriptions of Egyptian numerology, that ἀμήν has the same numerical value, and that ἀμήν has been associated with magic. Remember that the number only works in Greek, not Hebrew nor Egyptian. The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't actually saying that the mystical use of amen comes from Egypt: it says that amen has mystical uses, has numerical value in Greek of 99, and that number had mystical uses in Egypt. Remember that the god Amun is Ἄμμουν in Greek, which is 601. Read it carefully, for it isn't saying what you think or want it to say. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Greek phonetic spelling of "Amun" isn't a standard in the MDU NTR (hieroglyphs). Thus, we see both "Amun" and "Amen" in phonetically spelled in English written Egyptian definitions for the term. The Greek language is not a one-for-one transliteration for Egyptian metu neter. Metu Neter is unique to itself. As I have shown with the Gerald Massey except; The Egyptian glyph for Amen in the earlier dynasties is different from the latter dynasties: (..."Iu(Eg.) was originally written aa. and the pyramid or Triangle"). So, a standardized form of metu neter based in Greeco-Roman language would be marginally inaccurate because the factor deals primarily in Greek phonetics and not Egyptian essence. What I gathered from Catholic Encyclopedia excerpt is that a certain form of gematria from the word "Amen" was borrowed from the Egyptian metu neter and inserted into "early Christian inscriptions". That would reflect a "connection" between the two cultures, the term, and should be enough evidence to remove the word "proposed" from the Egyptian, etymology statement, as well as the citation on the main page. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuwaubian Hotep, I find the grammar of your last statement awkward, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The Greek transliteration is just that: how Greeks of a certain period spelt the name. The hieroglyphs don't give us the 'u', and they don't really give us the 'a' either (Egyptian ỉ isn't really a vowel but a weak consonant). To vocalise the Egyptian word ỉmn as 'amen' is to use an egyptologist trick of inserting a dummy e wherever a vowel is needed. That vocalisation is not represented by any historical evidence: it's a modern dummy spelling. Greek and Coptic, although late, use a 'u' vowel, and Masoretic Hebrew uses a 'o' vowel. To say that the spelling 'Amun' isn't represented in the hieroglyphs is untrue as no vowel is written. To give equivalence of 'Amen' with 'Amun' is to match a dummy spelling with one from the historical record. Actually, it is reckoned that the original pronunciation was 'Yamānu' (see below for my explanation of this).

Then we have Gerald Massey. I don't think he can be taken all that seriously. Do you not think he sounds like he's talking mumbo jumbo? As for Greek phonetics, yes, there are some Egyptian phonemes that don't exist in Greek (that's why Coptic added extra letters). However, none of these sounds exist in this word, and Coptic doesn't use its extra letters to spell it. If a Greek writer learns of an Egyptian god, that writer would likely try to represent the name as best as possible in Greek. There might be mistakes and misunderstandings, but the long history of sharing the eastern Mediterranean basin, and later Ptolemid rule of Egypt should smooth that over. In fact, if our Greek writer had heard an Egyptian say 'Amen' is the name of their god, it could have been easily written down in Greek.

I still believe you're reading too much into this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The article does not say that "a certain form of gematria from the word "Amen" was borrowed from the Egyptian metu neter". It says that Egyptians practised numerology, that the Greek spelling (but no other spelling) of 'amen' gives us the auspicious number 99, which was popular in Egypt too. It doesn't say that the Egyptian 99 was written 'amen', because that's only possible in Greek (i.e. in Ptolomid and later eras). A connexion between cultures is not in doubt, but it doesn't mean that two words with similar spellings are related. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

===============

To further exemplify the point. The Egyptian term Amen was not a definitive two-dimensional standard. Throughout the dynasties the term took a plethora of forms in the written mdu ntr:

is only one form. And...

was another. This in itself invalidates all of the phonetic misnomer branded speculation with the additional understanding that the phonetics of mdu ntr still is not completely understood or agreed upon in a peered review of experts.

The effectiveness of the Catholic Encyclopedia definition defines both the Egyptian and Christian terms (regardless of spelling) as having a "magical efficacy": a purely Egyptian tribute ergo; A relation of term that can be referenced on the main page. The Egyptian culture predates the Greeks by thousands of years and this reference source is laid out in the simplest of terms so that even a layman can understand it. I'm puzzled as to why you Gareth are missing the overall point.

About Gerald Massey. You Gareth appear to have a foundational, functioning command of Egyptology, along with Greek and Hebraic texts. It's amazing that even you would purport to belittle the scholastic acumen and celebrated knowledge of the world renowned brilliance of a Gerald Massey. The mere inference on your part only further acknowledges (in my opinion) your overall fallacy and incompleteness of thought within the intelligence of your missives you've contributed here. With this stated: "No", I do not agree that his work is "mumbo jumbo". Basically what he's stating (or proving) is that science of langauge and symbols morphed from it's initial Egyptian hieroglyphic creation into the latter Greek and Latin fonts. This again, coincides marginally with the Catholic Encyclopedia reference of Amen. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Egyptian language was never a monolithic, unchanging phenomenon, and that a number of hieroglyphs were used to represent the god Amun. The three phonemic graphs are most commonly used, often in conjunction with a more specific determinative. The determinative O24, which is a pyramid (mr) or Memphis (mn-nfr), does not prove anything in itself. The anthropomorphic sign C12 is more common for Amun, and I would question whether O24 is actually used to represent the god. Gerald Massey was self-taught and doesn't seem to have ever been a member of an academic establishment. That his main line seems to have been religious speculation doesn't add weight to his reputation. The quote you gave above in which he connects Hebrew, Chinese, Egyptian and Insular Celtic is based on a single coincidence of similar shapes. A triangle is a universal symbol for no mystical reason: it's how you do a three-sided shape. In that passage, he says 'Amen' (his spelling) means 'come': it does not. He introduces the correct word as 'Iu': scientific spelling 'ỉw(ỉ)', which has no signs in common with those in 'Amun'. I think the sentence "The pyramid (triangula) is the letter A in stellar form" fits the generally accepted description of mumbo jumbo: fancy words dressed up to confuse the ill-informed. He then derives the name 'Jesus' from (I'll use his bad spellings) from 'Iu' ('come') and 'Su' ('son', scientific transliteration: s3). Academic consensus is solidly behind the name being ישוע (yēšûăʿ). The proposed Egyptian doesn't even fit this well: it only works, and then only close enough, in English. Finally, "the pubescent male who was born of the virgin mother without the fatherhood, third in advent, but placed first in series, as the representative of all the powers, whose natural genesis has been traced to lunar phenomena, and who in the solar mythos was the opponent and vanquisher of the Beast with ten horns, which represented the total of the opposing Typhoninan powers" — this man is not propounding any sound academic approach to anything. Keep the faith with Massey if you want, but I think others would agree that he is no authority on academic egyptology. Bringing him up, just makes your argument look more desperate. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian text

I think the stuff added yesterday ("Amen (Amon, Amun, Ammon, Amoun) ... As creation god he assumed at times the name of Kematef (Greek Kneph) and was depicted as a snake.") should come out as inappropriate. Surely this is covered in Amun, which is refered to in Amen (disambiguation). Does anybody agree? AWhiteC 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have removed it accordingly. -- Chris B • talk 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Removed the following text:

Amen (Amon) and Amen-Ra, King of the Gods, and the Triad of Thebes

Among the gods who were known to the Egyptians in very early times were Amen and his consort Ament, and their names are found in the Pyramid Texts, e.g., Unas, line 558, where they are mentioned immediately after the pair of gods Nau and Nen, and in connection with the twin Lion-gods Shu and Tefnut, who are described as the two gods who made their own bodies, and with the goddess Temt, the female counterpart of Tem. It is evident that even in the remote period of the Vth Dynasty Amen and Ament were numbered among the primeval gods, if not as gods in chief certainly as subsidiary forms of some of them, and from the fact that they are mentioned immediately after the deities of primeval matter, Nau and Nen, who we may consider to be the equivalents of the watery abyss from which all things sprang, and immediately before Temt and Shu and Tefnut, it would seem that the writers or editors of the Pyramid Texts assigned great antiquity to their existence. Of the attributes ascribed to Amen in the Ancient Empire nothing is known, but, if we accept the meaning "hidden" which is usually given to his name, we must conclude that he was the personification of the hidden and unknown creative power which was associated with the primeval abyss, gods in the creation of the world, and all that is in it. The word or root amen, certainly means "what is hidden," "what is not seen," "what cannot be seen," and the like, and this fact is proved by scores of examples which may be collected from texts of all periods. In hymns to Amen we often read that he is "hidden to his children, "and "hidden to gods and men," and it has been stated that these expressions only refer to the "hiding," i.e., "setting" of the sun each evening, and that they are only to be understood in a physical sense, and to mean nothing more than the disappearance of the god Amen from the sight of men at the close of day. Now, not only is the god himself said to be "hidden," but his name also is "hidden," and his form, or similitude, is said to be "unknown;" these statements show that "hidden," when applied to Amen, the great god, has reference to something more than the "sun which has disappeared below the horizon," and that it indicates the god who cannot be seen with the mortal eyes, and who is invisible, as well as inscrutable, to gods as well as men. In the times approaching the Ptolemaic period the name Amen appears to have been connected with the root men, "to abide, to be permanent;" and one of the attributes which were applied to him was that of eternal. Amen is represented in five forms: 1. As a man, when he is seen seated on a throne, and holding in one hand the scepter, and in the other the symbol of "life." In this form he is one of the nine deities who compose the company of the gods of Amen-Ra, the other eight being Ament, Nu, Nut, Hehui, Hehet, Kekui, Keket, and Hathor. 2. As a man with the head of a frog, whilst his female counterpart Ament has the head of a uraeus. 3. As a man with the head of a uraeus, whilst his female counterpart has the head of a cat. 4. As an ape. 5. As a lion couching upon a pedestal.

Ufwuct (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen - Egyptian Origin

Amen is definitely derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. A number of sources have been provided so far from scholarly texts and yet the origin is still in dispute because it casts doubt on the validity of the Hebrew origin. We can assume that the Egyptian usage of the word Amen should be of great importance to the reader in understanding the origin of the word itself because all the letters that form the word AMEN are derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The Hebrew people came out of Egypt and the Egyptian language had a direct influence on their use of the term. Israel would not be named after three sun gods - Isis, Ra and El if it weren't for their Egyptian roots. You can deny the facts but they are still facts. Years of book burnings will not cover up the truth. Isis, Ra and El are three gods used to derive the term Israel. You can see the Egyptian origin in the name. I may not be able to back that up with so called "scholarly text" but the facts are hard to deny with a proper understanding of Egyptian religion and mythology.

The Letters which make up the word Amen are all derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Therefore, the Egyptian use of the word Amen must be considered part of the definition. It is impossible for the word Amen to have came about without the use of the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols. The letters A,M,E, and N are all derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. In other words, all the letters that make up the word Amen are derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Now for some facts on the letters which make up the word AMEN:

A - first letter of the Roman alphabet. It evolved from the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph representing the head of an ox. The Hebrews adapted it as the first letter of their alphabet, calling it aleph, meaning ox, from where it evolved into the Greek alpha. The letter a is a vowel.

[2]

A, a is the first letter of our alphabet. It was the first letter in the first known alphabet, which dates from about 1850 B.C. It was used by a people called Seirites, who lived on the Sinai Peninsula north of the Red Sea. They took this letter from Egyptian drawings of the head of an ox. The Phoenicians, who lived in the eastern Mediterranean area, also made A the first letter in their alphabet. They named it aleph, which means ox. The Phoenician A looked less like an ox head, and more like the A of the present-day alphabet. The Greeks took the letter into their alphabet and called it alpha. They made slight changes in its shape. The shape of the letter was changed again when it passed into the Roman alphabet.

In the Seirite and Phoenician alphabets, A stood for a light breathing sound, which was not used in pronouncing the letter in the later alphabets. A stands for six main sounds in the English alphabet. Examples of these sounds are found in the words name, bare, man, father, water, and want.

The World Book Encyclopedia. Copyright 1956. Volume 1. Page 1.

File:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EgyptianA-01.svg

M, m is the thirteenth letter of our alphabet. It was also a letter in the early alphabets of the Semites. It probably came from a zigzag line which was an Egyptian hieroglyphic sign to represent water in motion. The Semitic name for this letter was mem, which meant water. The Greeks named the letter mu when they adopted the Semitic alphabet. The sound of m was pronounced by the Semites, the Greeks, and the Romans in the same manner that we pronounce it today.

The World Book Encyclopedia. Copyright 1956. Volume 11. Page 4655.

File:Http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/img/hiero N35.png

E is derived from the Greek letter epsilon which is much the same in appearance (Ε, ε) and function. In etymology, the Semitic hê probably first represented a praying or calling human figure (hillul jubilation), and was probably based on a similar Egyptian hieroglyph that was pronounced and used quite differently.

File:Http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/img/hiero A28.png

N,n is the fourteenth letter of our alphabet. It was a letter in the early alphabets of the Semites. These people lived on the Sinai Peninsula north of the Red Sea. They probably took the letter from an Egyptian hieroglyph which was a picture of a snake. The Semitic word for serpent was nahash and the sign was used to represent the first letter of this word. Since the Semitic name for the letter N itself is nun, which in the Semitic languages means fish, some scholars think that the sign came from the drawing of a fish rather than a serpent. The Greeks took over the letter and named it nu. The Semites, the Greeks and the Romans pronounced N in the same manner as we pronounce it today.

The World Book Encyclopedia. Copyright 1956. Volume 12. Page 5383.

File:Http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/img/hiero I10.png

Now, we know that all the letters that make up the word Amen are derived from Egyptian.

Why would you not believe that the Egyptian term is the original one?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia seems to think that the Egyptian origin was the first:

It is curious that in the lately-discovered Latin life of St. Melania the Younger, of the early fifth century, we are told how the Saint in receiving Communion before death answered Amen and kissed the hand of the bishop who had brought it (see Cardinal Rampella, Santa Melania Giuniore, 1905, p. 257). But the practice of answering Amen is older than this. It appears in the Canons of Hippolytus (No. 146) and in the Egyptian Church Order (p. 101).

Finally, we may note that the word Amen occurs not infrequently in early Christian inscriptions, and that it was often introduced into anathemas and gnostic spells. Moreover, as the Greek letters which form Amen according to their numerical values total 99 (alpha=1, mu=40, epsilon=8, nu=50), this number often appears in inscriptions, especially of Egyptian origin, and a sort of magical efficacy seems to have been attributed to its symbol. It should also be mentioned that the word Amen is still employed in the ritual both of Jews and Mohammedans.

[3]

Luckynumbers (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed the following portion of the article because the cited pages were not experts on the subject and one of the references was merely a blog type page. This is an opinion and not based on fact.

Mainstream scholars consider this explanation both unlikely [5] and unnecessary, considering that Amen is easily explained in terms of native Hebrew vocabulary and morphology.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckynumbers (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Luckynumbers (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "blog" is really an online periodical (not scholarly) originally added to the section in question in support of Amen<--Amun. This Columbia Missourian piece, however, includes a general rebuttal of Egyprian-origins theories from a New Testament professor at the University of Edinburgh who says that "Identifiably Egyptian influence [on Christianity] is negligible."

The other citation is from the Online Etymology Dictionary, which is used several times in this article. The Online Etymology Dictionary was created by an amateur who based his etymologies on expert-generated references like the Oxford English Dictionary. If that is not reliable enough, see the American Heritage Dictionary under amen:

Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin āmēn, from Greek, from Hebrew ’āmēn, certainly, verily, from ’āman, to be firm. See 'mn in Appendix II.

And so the American Heritage Dictionary, Appendix II: Semitic Roots, the entry on the triliteral root 'mn :

West Semitic, to be firm, confirmed, reliable, faithful, have faith, believe. a. amen, from Hebrew ’āmēn, truly, certainly;

Amen is a Hebrew word from a native Semitic root demanding no more explanation than any other simple Hebrew word. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A New Testament professor is not an expert on the Egyptian use of the word Amen nor is he an expert on the Egyptian religions that predated Judaism or Christianity. Therefore his rebuttal is not worth using as a source. What expertise does this person have in the Egyptian use of the word Amen? None.

The Hebrew language is limited and according to the World Book Encyclopedia "modern users of the language have tried to correct the defects in the language by inventing new words or taking them from other languages."

According to the World Book Encyclopedia, The first period of development in the Hebrew language "was the phase before the first great exile of the Jews from Palestine. Much of the Old Testament was written during this period. Some words and forms were borrowed from the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, and Aramaic languages." I propose that they borrowed the word from the Egyptians because there is proof that they did. Please back up the Hebrew origin with fact. Since the Hebrew language borrowed from other languages, we can assume that the word Amen was borrowed because there is no evidence showing that the word originates with the Hebrew language. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that proves otherwise.

Luckynumbers (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence at all for an Egyptian origin for Hebrew amen.

The alphabetical argument made above is absurd. The hieroglyphic origins of the Hebrew alphabet—and ultimately of many alphabets, including English—implies absolutely nothing about any words represented by the alphabet. If a, m, and n confer Egyptianess on all words spelled with them, then English am, man, name, and mane should be proposed as Egyptian loans! (Including the Egyptian background for e, via Semitic he, in the argument for Egyptian origins of Hebrew amen shows a fundamental misreading of Hebrew amen, which contains no he.)

The historical and archeological arguments, using information provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia to draw conclusions that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not entertain, are worthy of clarification but do not hold up either to a modicum of scrutiny. "But the practice of answering Amen is older than this" (refering to the Latin life of St. Melania) is emphasized to imply that the appearance of 'amen' in the Egyptian Church Order is "the first." But so what if this Egyptian source is older than the fifth-century Life of St. Melania? The Hebrew Bible uses of amen are at least centuries older still. Even setting aside chronology, this piece of Egyptian-origin "evidence" has a deep flaw: the Egyptian Church Order is obviously of Christian provenace and as such has nothing to do with Amun outside of the realm of conjecture. Similarly, reference to inscriptions of "especially Egyptian origin" that include the number 99 with a supposedly magical significance indicates only that the Greek word amen (not an Egyptian one) was in use in the early Christian period.

None of this is shocking because early Christianity and Hellenistic syncretistic magic were both influenced by the Hebrew Bible via its first Greek translation, the Septuagint. The Jewish/Hebrew-Bible background of the earliest forms of Christianity is what that New Testament professor that was quoted in the online periodical (Columbia Missourian) was getting at. One need not be an expert in Egyptian deities to see that Biblical Hebrew amen is the source for Christian (Egyptian or otherwise) amen and not the reverse.

But the Columbia Missourian was cited originally by a user with the Amen<--Amun point of view, so its deletion does not concern me. What is alarming is that the American Heritage Dictionary reference was removed. The section we are discussing is "Etymology," and the section deserves reference to the standard etymology, even if the standard etymology ignores ones pet theory. After all, this is an encyclopedia, and inclusion of an unsupported conjecture like the Egyptian origin of amen must be qualified by a responsible evaluation of the evidence.

The oldest appearance of amen with the expected meaning is in the Hebrew Bible. There is no Egyptian context to the bible's uses of amen. There are no Egyptian-language sources with amen being used in the sense used by the Hebrew Bible. The process of amen being loaned from Hebrew to Greek, and then Latin, and so on, is well documented. So the historical evidence for a Hebrew origin is all that is needed here.

But the linguistic picture is still more compelling. There are indeed many words in Biblical Hebrew (not most words, not even close to most) that appear to be loans, and linguists have proposed loan hypotheses for these. But amen is not among these words. It is used in Biblical Hebrew in a sense that corresponds perfectly with the Hebrew root 'mn. This root is inflected to amen in a manner wholly consistant with Biblical Hebrew morphology. To top it off, this understanding is confirmed by the uses of 'mn in the cognate Western Semitic languages. —Hanina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Look up Strong's Concordance, No. 543 in its Hebrew Lexicon, and No. 281 in its Greek Lexicon.

The Hebrew pronunciation comes from aw-mane and the root of the word in Hebrew comes from aman.

According to Strong's Concordance No. 539, aman is:

[ http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB5.htm#S543]

a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with aman' (541)) to go to the right hand:--hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

Did you notice that the Hebrew name that it is derived from is the same as the name of an Egyptian God? Aman is another spelling of Amun, Amen, Amon, Ammon, Aman, or Hammon.

The Greek version refers you back to the Hebrew version of the word. The Hebrew version is aman. It is not the root of amen!

Strong's No. 281 in the Greek Lexicon [ http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK2.htm#S281 |

I have provided the information below as to the Egyptian use of the word Amen. It is backed up by solid sources. I really don't care if you believe the Christians or Hebrew people used the same word as the Egyptians. The fact of the matter is that the Egyptians had a deity named Amen and it is just as relevant as the others use of the word. I am not going to play my religion is bigger than yours. The fact of the matter is that the Egyptians used the word Amen. I really don't care if Amen is the same god or not. It is still valid.

I created a new portion for the Egyptian use of the word. I have provided the sources of information. I am not going to argue with you on this. Your objections are obviously faith based. I will leave the Etymology section alone. I just think that it is important to display the Egyptian use of the word too. As a compromise, I am creating the Egyptian Section. You should not have a problem with this.

Amen(also spelled Amun, Amon, Ammon, Aman, or Hammon), in ancient Egyptian religion and mythology, a god whose name means “what is hidden,” “what is not seen,” or “what cannot be seen.” He is god of the breath of life that animates all living creatures as well as the spirit that permeates every inanimate object.

Amen has his origin in Thebes. He is known as Lord of Creation and Protector of the Poor and Weak. His name means “The Hidden One.” He is considered the father of all gods; thus he does not have a mother or father but is husband to Mut, the Great Mother. During the Middle Kingdom, Uast became the state capitol of Egypt and since Amen was the central god of Uast, he became the state god and was later combined with Ra (another creator god) to become Amen-Ra, and worshiped as the King of Gods.

The central divinity of Egyptian religion is the sun, and from early times the most important sun god is Re. He is believed to sail his boat under the world each night. Every time, during the journey, he has to defeat an evil spirit, Apophis, before he can reappear.

At Thebes, which becomes the capital in about 2000 BC, another god, Amen, is of great importance. In about 1500 BC combines with Re to become Amen-Re, who from then on is effectively the state god of Egypt, identified with the pharaoh. The two greatest temples at Karnak and Luxor are dedicated to Amen-Re.

For one brief period Amen is shifted from his central position in the Egyptian pantheon. Soon after Amenhotep IV comes to the throne, in about 1353 BC, he changes his name from Amenhotep ('Amen is satisfied') to Akhenaten ('beneficial to Aten'), signifying that the new state deity is to be Aten, the disk of the sun. Six years later Akhenaten moves the court from Thebes to an entirely new capital city, some 300 miles down the Nile at a site now known as Tell el Amarna. A great temple to Aten is its central feature.

At the same time Akhenaten attempts to have the name of Amen erased from all inscriptions. Aten is to be the only god.

The insistence that there is no other god but Aten represents a first step towards monotheism, and for this reason much attention has been paid to Akhenaten by western historians. In the Egyptian perspective he seems less significant. Within a few years of his death, in about 1336 BC, the old religion is restored, the court moves back to Thebes, and Tell el Amarna is destroyed.

Again the change is symbolized in a change of name. Akhenaten is succeeded by two boys, each married to one of his daughters to give them legitimacy. The second of the two is called Tutankhaten. In the resurgence of the cult of Amen, the new pharaoh's name is changed to Tutankhamen.

According to the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt:

Tuthmose III built the first Amen sanctuary (labeled B 500-sub by Reisner) at Gebel Barkal. The stela at Amada of Amenhotep II is the first to record a town here called Napata, from whose “walls” a Syrian chief was said to have been hung. Temple building activity continued under Thutmose IV, who added temples B 700-sub, B 600-sub and B 300-sub. During the Amarna period (reign of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten), the name of Amen was methodically erased from local monuments, revealing that the king even attempted to eradicate the local cult in Nubia. It was restored, however, under Tutankhamen and Horemheb, who erected the nucleus of temple B 500.

The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt goes on to state that:

The Amen cult and sanctuary at Gebel Barkal were revived by the native Nubian kings buried at nearby el-Kurru. Why they became adherents to the Egyptian cult of Amen remains unclear, but one theory suggests that their conversion may have been brought about by expatriate Theban priests, fleeing persecutions caused by civil disturbances in Upper Egypt at the end of the 22nd Dynasty. The earliest Napatan temple (B 800-sub) was of mudbrick with stone columns, and this can almost certainly be attributed to Alara (circa 785–760 BC), the first Napatan king known by name. Its stone extension, as well as the lowest level of the adjacent Napatan palace (B 1200), can be attributed to his successor, Kashta (circa 760–747 BC), the first Kushite king to reign also in Egypt. His son Piye (circa 747–716 BC) refurbished the old Egyptian temple B 500, first encasing it in new masonry and adding new rooms, then later restoring the hypostyle hall (B 502) with 46 columns and adding a new outer court (B 501). He also refurbished B 800 in stone. These parallel Amen temples are presumed to have been dedicated to Amen of Napata and Amen of Karnak, respectively, since each god was said to have conferred upon the Kushite kings a half part of their kingship. Piye’s son and third successor, Taharka (circa 690–664 BC), added temples B 200 and 300, dedicated to the goddesses Hathor, Mut, Tefnut and Sekhmet, who were all aspects of the “Eye of Re,” manifested in Gebel Barkal’s uraeiform pinnacle beneath which the temples were built. He also placed a statue and inscription, covered with gold sheet, on the summit of the pinnacle.

SIR E. A. Wallis Budge, LITT. D., D. LITT., who was assigned keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum, in his work titled Tutankhamen - Amenism, Atenism and Egyptian Monotheism , stated the following:

The caps on the pyramidions of obelisks were made of tcham metal, and the brightness of them could be seen many leagues away. In line 3 Amen is said to have been ptah-tu, i.e., he was "designed," just as an object is designed, or plotted out, by a draughtsman, and the correct meaning of the word may be that Amen designed his own form. Next the god "plated his limbs," i.e., he made them to have the appearance of plates made of tcham metal. This statement is followed by the words, "[He] gives birth, but was not himself born: Only One in his characteristics, qualities, powers and operations."

Thus we learn that Amen was, like Khepera, self-designed, self-created, self-existent in a form that was never born as ordinary creatures are, and that he was One and Alone without equal, or fellow, or counterpart. The writer next refers to the duration of the god's existence, as the traverser of eternity, and the passer over the roads of millions of years with his form. His splendour is the splendour of heaven, and though "all men see his passage, he is hidden from their faces" (in his character of the "hidden" god). He travels over the celestial waters vast distances in a moment of time every day. There is no cessation in his work, and every one sees him, never ceasing to do so. When he sets he rises upon the denizens of the Tuat, and his rays force their way into the eyes [of the dead] (?) When he sets in the western horizon men fall asleep and becomomes motionless like the dead. With these words the Hymn to Amen comes to an end.

Among the gods who were known to the Egyptians in very early times were Amen and his consort Ament, and their names are found in the Pyramid Texts, e.g., Unas, line 558, where they are mentioned immediately after the pair of gods Nau and Nen, and in connection with the twin Lion-gods Shu and Tefnut, who are described as the two gods who made their own bodies, and with the goddess Temt, the female counterpart of Tem. It is evident that even in the remote period of the Vth Dynasty Amen and Ament were numbered among the primeval gods, if not as gods in chief certainly as subsidiary forms of some of them, and from the fact that they are mentioned immediately after the deities of primeval matter, Nau and Nen, who we may consider to be the equivalents of the watery abyss from which all things sprang, and immediately before Temt and Shu and Tefnut, it would seem that the writers or editors of the Pyramid Texts assigned great antiquity to their existence. Of the attributes ascribed to Amen in the Ancient Empire nothing is known, but, if we accept the meaning "hidden" which is usually given to his name, we must conclude that he was the personification of the hidden and unknown creative power which was associated with the primeval abyss, gods in the creation of the world, and all that is in it. The word or root amen, certainly means "what is hidden," "what is not seen," "what cannot be seen," and the like, and this fact is proved by scores of examples which may be collected from texts of all periods. In hymns to Amen we often read that he is "hidden to his children, "and "hidden to gods and men," and it has been stated that these expressions only refer to the "hiding," i.e., "setting" of the sun each evening, and that they are only to be understood in a physical sense, and to mean nothing more than the disappearance of the god Amen from the sight of men at the close of day. Now, not only is the god himself said to be "hidden," but his name also is "hidden," and his form, or similitude, is said to be "unknown;" these statements show that "hidden," when applied to Amen, the great god, has reference to something more than the "sun which has disappeared below the horizon," and that it indicates the god who cannot be seen with the mortal eyes, and who is invisible, as well as inscrutable, to gods as well as men. In the times approaching the Ptolemaic period the name Amen appears to have been connected with the root men, "to abide, to be permanent;" and one of the attributes which were applied to him was that of eternal. Amen is represented in five forms: 1. As a man, when he is seen seated on a throne, and holding in one hand the scepter, and in the other the symbol of "life." In this form he is one of the nine deities who compose the company of the gods of Amen-Ra, the other eight being Ament, Nu, Nut, Hehui, Hehet, Kekui, Keket, and Hathor. 2. As a man with the head of a frog, whilst his female counterpart Ament has the head of a uraeus. 3. As a man with the head of a uraeus, whilst his female counterpart has the head of a cat. 4. As an ape. 5. As a lion couching upon a pedestal.

Luckynumbers (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My objections are not faith-based, they are fact-based. No one will dispute that there was an Egyptian god named Amun, which might have been pronounced Amen. But he has nothing to do with this article, which is about amen, an interjection in many languages. That the interjection and the deity are spelled the same has not been shown to be anything other than a mere coincidence. The "Amen in Ancient Egypt" section is therefore not appropriate here, but it may be appropriate for the Amun article. There is a disambiguation line at the opening of this article so that anyone looking for the Egyptian god spelled "Amen" can find it.

Thanks for drawing our attention to Strong's Concordance, which verifies the American Heritage Dictionary in stating that Hebrew amen is derived from a "primitive root." —Hebrew amen is therefore not a loan. Looking up this root in Strong's Concordance yields an excellent illustration of how amen is related through this root to a host of other Hebrew words containing the root letters and inflected into different usages. Here is Strong's entry for amen's root, containing a list of its derived forms (in English equivalents):

1) to support, confirm, be faithful

a) (Qal)

1) to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish

a) foster-father (subst.)

b) foster-mother, nurse

c) pillars, supporters of the door

b) (Niphal)

1) to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm

a) to be carried by a nurse

b) made firm, sure, lasting

c) confirmed, established, sure

d) verified, confirmed

e) reliable, faithful, trusty

c) (Hiphil)

1) to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in

a) stand firm

b) trust, believe

Strong's thus shows that there are many Hebrew words derived from the same Hebrew root that amen is, all of them reflecting the root meaning of "establish, [con/af]firm." See it at http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H539&t=KJV

—Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NO ! EXCUSE ME ... I JUST PROVED THE HEBREW WORD IS NOT THE ROOT !

Strong's #281 [4]

amen am-ane'

of Hebrew origin ('amen 543); properly, firm, i.e. (figuratively) trustworthy; adverbially, surely (often as interjection, so be it):--amen, verily.

So ... #281 links to Strong's #543.

Strong's #543 says:

[5]

amen aw-mane'

from aman' (539); sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly:--Amen, so be it, truth.

OK. So now we are directed to go to Strong's #539.

Strong's #539 [6]

'aman aw-man'

a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with aman' (541)) to go to the right hand:--hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.'

The word aman is linked to Strong's #541 [7]

'aman aw-man'

denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225); to take the right hand road:--turn to the right. See aman' (539).

It refers you back to the word aman at Strong's #539 and to a different word - yamiyn.

Strong #3225

yamiyn yaw-meen'

from 'yaman' (3231); the right hand or side (leg, eye) of a person or other object (as the stronger and more dexterous); locally, the south:--+ left-handed, right (hand, side), south.

And finally Strong's 3231

yaman yaw-man'

a primitive root; to be (physically) right (i.e. firm); but used only as denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225) and transitive, to be right-handed or take the right-hand side:--go (turn) to (on, use) the right hand.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMEN!

The primitive root of the word is aman in Hebrew! There never was a Hebrew root for the word and it certainly proves it!

The root of the word in Hebrew is aman. It is not amen.

Now. I just proved it for all to see !!!!!

In spite of all the shouting, once again what you have "just proved. . . for all to see !!!!!" is that amen is a Hebrew word related to many other Hebrew words through a root verb aman. No connection whatsoever, linguistic or historical, to Amun has been proven. It has not even been shown that amen or the verb aman were loans into Hebrew, but rather the contrary: Strong's confirms so many times that the words are Hebrew. The changes in vowels relate to Hebrew inflectional morphology.

Maintaining the references in the article to Strong's and the American Heritage Dictionary as if they support the Amen<--Amun conjecture is therefore misleading; this should be changed immediately to reflect reality. Also, the long section describing the deity Amun-spelled-Amen, while interesting, remains misplaced here as it has no connection (within the content of all that long section, or otherwise) to the amen interjection that is the topic of this article. Please determine how best to incorporate that material into Amun if it is missing there.

The confused and unencyclopedic discussion of Strong's in the article needs sorting out, which I will attempt to do briefly here before revising the article. Strong's #H543 is cited above to show, correctly, that amen is derived from the verb aman. After following crossreferences through Strong's to several other related words, the conclusion is announced: "The root of the word in Hebrew is aman. It is not amen."

OK, that's true, if not well put. The root verb of Hebrew amen is Hebrew aman, not some verb amen (which does not exist in Biblical Hebrew, while the interjection amen does exist). The premature conclusion announced just prior to this, however, is then contradictory to this information and to all that was cited from Strong's:

"The primitive root of the word is aman in Hebrew!" So far so good, but then, "There never was a Hebrew root for the word and it certainly proves it!" cannot be maintained. The verb aman represents a Hebrew root, as shown in Strong's #H543 and #H539; neither aman nor amen are classied as loans there (unlike, for example, #G281). The Hebrew root is identified specifically as 'mn in the American Heritage Dictionary, which agrees that Hebrew amen derives from Hebrew aman.

That settles the main issue here, but the digression above into Strong's #H541 and beyond also draws false conclusions based on misreading. When Strong's #H539 describes the several usual meanings for aman (such as to be "firm or faithful") it notes that the word is used only "once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with aman (541)) to go to the right hand." In this one instance the meaning of aman relates to "right hand." So perhaps "right handedness" is part of the root meanings of the Hebrew verb. Alternatively, this Isaiah example might be a different verb with its own Strong's number, #H541, with which this single usage of #H539 is "interchangeable." Signficantly, it is only #H541—not the usual verb aman #H539—that Strong's describes as being derived from the noun yamin (right hand). In any case, none of these words are loans; yamin is Hebrew too.

But to round out the discussion, Strong's #H3231 (yaman) has no relevance here. It is another verb, in addition to #H541, associated with the noun yamin. To address what seems to be the point in citing #H3231: it is also Hebrew. As I have acknowledged above, Biblical Hebrew contains some putative loans. But none of these discussed words are among them.

To wrap it up, I repeat a quote found on the Strong's page discussing the loan of amen from Hebrew into Greek (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G281&t=KJV):

The word "amen" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word in human speech. The word is directly related -- in fact, almost identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (aman), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence.

—Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The very name of Israel comes from Isis - Ra - El. Two Egyptian sun gods. Ra is from Amen -Ra. El is Saturn. The name of Israel gives their borrowing from Egyptian gods away.

According to the Catholic Enclyclopedia:

Thebes was the No-Amon of the Jews, the Nouit-Amen of the Egyptians (City or Kingdom of Amon), the Nia of the Assyrians, and the Diospolis of the Greeks, which is the exact translation of Nouit-Amen. The Egyptians also called it Per or Pi-Amen, the dwelling of Amon, and also Apet, whence, with the article Ta before the feminine name Apet, is derived Ta-Apet, or Tape, as it is called by the modern Copts, the Thebai of the Greeks. Thebes is mentioned three times in the Bible under the name of No-Amon in the Hebrew text, which the Vulgate each time renders incorrectly by Alexandria. Nahum (iii, 8-10) refers to the victories of Assurbanipal, King of Ninive, over Tanutamen, King of Egypt, as we now know from the cylinders of that sovereign (G. Smith, "History of Assurbanipal", 52-56). It is thought that Jeremias (xlvi, 25) and Ezechiel (xxx, 14-16) allude to the two campaigns of Nabuchodonosor against Thebes, which took place in 583 and 588 B.C.

Originally a mere borough, Thebes grew by degrees, and as early as the twelfth dynasty its sovereigns dominated Egypt. Thenceforth also its god Amon-Ra, to whom the pharaohs had erected numerous monuments, became the foremost of the gods. halted for a time by the invasion of the Hyksos, the growth of Thebes continued under the pharaohs of the eighteenth and especially those of the nineteenth dynasty, who extended their domination to the sources of the Euphrates. When the sovereigns of Thebes had become degenerate they were replaced by the priests of the god Amon, who constituted themselves the twenty-first dynasty. They disappeared in turn and the capital of Egypt was then transferred to the Delta. The city began to fall away, especially after the Assyrian armies had captured and devastated it in 668 and 664 B.C. and Nabuchodonosor had twice rifled it of its treasures. However, as long as there were Egyptian sovereigns, even under the Ptolemies, work was done at the temple of Karnak, which was only abandoned under the Roman domination. Thebes then became a place of pilgrimage and sight-seeing. Christians established their churches in the temples, monks and laymen dwelt everywhere, preferably in the ancient tombs. The great earthquake of 27 B.C. caused some damage, but that which ruined the temples of Karnak must have occurred two or three centuries later. [8]

The temple of Karnak is the Temple of Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckynumbers (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed the following from the etymology because it is not from a neutral source and the wording "mainstream scholars" is a blanket statement that was not even mentioned in the sources provided. That is an opinion. What is mainstream? The author was saying that she believed the bible was indeed based on Egyptian sources. I understand that. I just don't see where you got the sentence about "mainstream scholars consider this explanation both unlikely and unnecessary". Where was that mentioned? What is your source for that? That is an opinion. That is not fact. The sources you provided did not back up the statement.

Mainstream scholars consider this explanation both unlikely and unnecessary, considering that Amen is easily explained in terms of native Hebrew vocabulary and morphology.

Luckynumbers (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008(UTC)

I have revised the section so as to leave out the offending reference to the fact that the Amun conjecture is not mainstream. BTW, this talkpage now has three "Etymology" sections, which is hardly necessary.—Hanina

Strong's #281 amen am-ane'

of Hebrew origin ('amen 543); properly, firm, i.e. (figuratively) trustworthy; adverbially, surely (often as interjection, so be it):--amen, verily.

[9]

So ... #281 links to Strong's #543.

[10]

Strong's #543 says:

amen aw-mane'

from aman' (539); sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly:--Amen, so be it, truth.

OK. So now we are directed to go to Strong's #539.

[ http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB5.htm#S539]

Strong's #539 539

'aman aw-man'

a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with aman' (541)) to go to the right hand:--hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.'

The word aman is linked to Strong's #541

'aman aw-man'

denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225); to take the right hand road:--turn to the right. See aman' (539).

It refers you back to the word aman at Strong's #539 and to a different word - yamiyn.

Strong #3225 yamiyn yaw-meen'

from 'yaman' (3231); the right hand or side (leg, eye) of a person or other object (as the stronger and more dexterous); locally, the south:--+ left-handed, right (hand, side), south.

And finally Strong's 3231

yaman yaw-man'

a primitive root; to be (physically) right (i.e. firm); but used only as denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225) and transitive, to be right-handed or take the right-hand side:--go (turn) to (on, use) the right hand.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMEN !

The primitive root of the word is aman in Hebrew ! There never was a Hebrew root for the word and it certainly proves it!

The root of the word in Hebrew is Aman. It is not amen.

Now. I just proved it.

Luckynumbers (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeating the same material twice on the talkpage, which in this case was repeated under two separate but identical headings, "Etymology" (both of which you initiated). This page is becoming muddled and hard to follow as a result of this practice.

I have addressed all of the same material above. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not follow it to the root on the page of the Strong's Dictionary that you listed above. The root is 'aman. It is not amen and it is not the same thing as the word amen used in the bible. If you followed it to the root, you would see that the Hebrew version has nothing to do with the use of the word in the bible. I have already represented this many times now. The word amen is of unknown origin, but the Egyptian origin is much older than the Hebrew origin. Is it just coincidence that there was a God named Amen that was worshiped in Egypt and surrounding areas and the Jews just happened to have left Egpyt. The Christians and the Muslims both use the word, along with the Jews. Did the Muslims borrow the Hebrew word too? LOL

Luckynumbers (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have overlooked that I addressed above every "root" cited from Strong's. Repeating all of it is unecessary, but to summarize for those who—like me—are weary of scrolling up and down this page: Hebrew amen derives from Hebrew aman establish, trust (triliteral root 'mn); aman appears once in Isaiah with the meaning go right, possibly reflecting another meaning for 'mn or being separately derived from the Hebrew noun yamin. So amen is of known Biblical Hebrew origin; is used in the Bible the same way it is used today in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and is understood easily within the framework of Hebrew grammar. Therefore, that there was a god named Amun/Amen in Egypt and that the Jews left Egpyt are merely coincidental.

Christian borrowing of Hebrew amen has been amply demonstrated. The origin of Arabic amin has three main possibilities, none of which even remotely suggests an Egyptian origin.

• Hebrew and Arabic are both Western Semitic languages, both containing reflexes of 'mn with similar meanings. As with other such instances, it is not out of the question that both languages developed the word simultaneously; or that both inherit their version of the word from a common ancestor.
• Since, however, amin does not appear in the Quran, it must be found in pre-Islamic Arabic to verify the above position. Without such evidence, the possibility remains (Laugh Out Loud) that Muslims borrowed the word from Christians (perhaps from Christian Arabic), from Jews, or both.
• A third possibilty lies somewhere in between. Having their own stock of 'mn words, it was no stretch for Christian or Muslim Arabs to create another one (amin) following Arabic grammar but imitating the already known Greek or Hebrew amen.

—Hanina

Notice that in the Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary the heiroglyph is given for the word amen.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=8cMWickoS6oC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=amen+egypt+hieroglyphic+dictionary&source=web&ots=HyFnAijn5p&sig=wf7tI_Vc2aorMB9swxnx81YVWOU#PPA53,M1 ]

One of the uses of the word amen in Egyptian hieroglyphic means the right hand,the right side. Are you saying that the Egyptians borrowed the hieroglyph for their word from Hebrew. That would be a miracle. LOL.

Not only did the hieroglyph for Amen for the Egyptian God easily pre-date the Hebrew use of the word, the heiroglpyph for the use of the word amen meaning the right hand side pre-dates the Hebrew use. This only goes to show that the Hebrew people took it from the Egyptians.

The hieroglyphics lesson confirms that Hebrew amen does not derive from Amun. Budge never makes the amen<--Amun claim, not in the long citations slapped into the article, not under any of the several entries for "amen" in his dictionary. He does not even connect the deity or the meanings related to "hidden (one)" to the homophonous word for right side.

Even if Budge had made that claim, one cannot seriously argue that Hebrew yamin is a loan from Egyptian. The nouns yamin/yamīn (right, south) are distributed throughout Western and Eastern Semitic languages. It is fantastic to imagine that they all accepted a loan from Egyptian amen for so basic a concept as right. Furthermore, the Semitic yamin/yamīn always refers to right or south, not west as in Egyptian. The safest assumption is that Semitic languages inherit the word for right with one semantic field and Hamitic languages (like Egyptian) inherit the word for right with a similar (but not identical) semantic field from a common Afro-Asiatic speech.

I will not, then, argue that Egyptian borrowed its word for right from Hebrew. But, laugh out loud if you wish, Egyptian aspata (quiver) does seem to be a loan from a Northwest Semitic language. (See Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loans in Biblical Hebrew.)

But all this is far afield. Hebrew yamin (right) is not Hebrew's root for amen. Hebrew amen derives from Hebrew aman establish, trust (triliteral root 'mn).

—Hanina

Budge makes the connection in his book called - Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life [11]

The god Amen just referred to was originally a local god of Thebes, whose shrine was either founded or rebuilt as far back as the XIIth dynasty, about B.C. 2500. This "hidden" god, for such is the meaning of the name Amen, was essentially a god of the south of Egypt, but when the Theban kings vanquished their foes in the north, and so became masters of the whole country, Amen became a god of the first importance, and the kings of the XVIIIth, XIXth, and XXth dynasties endowed his temples on a lavish scale. The priests of the god called Amen "the king of the gods," and they endeavoured to make all Egypt accept him as such, but in spite of their power they saw that they could not bring this result about unless they identified him with the oldest gods of the land. They declared that he represented the hidden and mysterious power which created and sustains the universe, and that the sun was the symbol of this power; they therefore added his name to that of R[=a], and in this form he gradually usurped the attributes and powers of Nu, Khnemu, Ptah, H[=a]pi, and other great gods. A revolt headed by Amen-hetep, or Amenophis IV. (about B.C. 1500), took place against the supremacy of Amen in the middle of the XVIIIth dynasty, but it was unsuccessful. This king hated the god and his name so strongly that he changed his own name into that of "Khu-en-Aten," _i.e._, "the glory of the solar Disk," and ordered the name of Amen to be obliterated, wherever possible, on temples and other great monuments; and this was actually done in many places. It is impossible to say exactly what the religious views of the king were, but it is certain that he wished to substitute the cult of Aten, a form of the Sun-god worshipped at Annu (_i.e._, On or Heliopolis) in very ancient times, for that of Amen. "Aten" means literally the "Disk of the Sun," and though it is difficult to understand at this distance of time in what the difference between the worship of R[=a] and the worship of "R[=a] in his Disk" consisted, we may be certain that there must have been some subtle, theological distinction between them. But whatever the difference may have been, it was sufficient to make Amenophis forsake the old capital Thebes and withdraw to a place [Footnote: The site is marked by the ruins of Tell el-Amarna.]some distance to the north of that city, where he carried on the worship of his beloved god Aten. In the pictures of the Aten worship which have come down to us the god appears in the form of a disk from which proceed a number of arms and hands that bestow life upon his worshippers. After the death of Amenophis the cult of Aten declined, and Amen resumed his sway over the minds of the Egyptians.

Want of space forbids the insertion here of a full list of the titles of Amen, and a brief extract from the Papyrus of the Princess Nesi-Khensu [Footnote: For a hieroglyphic transcript of the hieratic text, see Maspero, _Memoires_, tom. i., p. 594 ff.] must suffice to describe the estimation in which the god was held about B.C. 1000. In this Amen is addressed as "the holy god, the lord of all the gods, Amen-R[=a], the lord of the thrones of the world, the prince of Apt (_i.e._, Karnak), the holy soul who came into being in the beginning, the great god who liveth by right and truth, the first ennead who gave birth unto the other two enneads, [Footnote: _i.e._, the great, the little, and the least companies of the gods; each company (_paut_) contained nine gods.] the being in whom every god existeth, the One of One, the creator of the things which came into being when the earth took form in the beginning, whose births are hidden, whose forms are manifold, and whose growth cannot be known. The holy Form, beloved and terrible and mighty.... the lord of space, the mighty One of the form of Khepera, who came into existence through Khepera, the lord of the form of Khepera; when he came into being nothing existed except himself. He shone upon the earth from primeval time, he the Disk, the prince of light and radiance.... When this holy god moulded himself, the heavens and the earth were made by his heart (_or_ mind).... He is the Disk of the Moon, the beauties whereof pervade the heavens and the earth, the untiring and beneficent king whose will germinateth from rising to setting, from whose divine eyes men and women come forth, and from whose mouth the gods do come, and [by whom] food and meat and drink are made and provided, and [by whom] the things which exist are created. He is the lord of time, and he traverseth eternity; he is the aged one who reneweth his youth.... He is the Being who cannot be known, and he is more hidden than all the gods.... He giveth long life and multiplieth the years of those who are favoured by him, he is the gracious protector of him whom he setteth in his heart, and he is the fashioner of eternity and everlastingness. He is the king of the North and of the South, Amen-R[=a], king of the gods, the lord of heaven, and of earth, and of the waters and of the mountains, with whose coming into being the earth began its existence, the mighty one, more princely than, all the gods of the first company."

In the above extract, it will be noticed that Amen is called the "One of One," or the "One One," a title which has been explained as having no reference whatever to the unity of God as understood in modern times: but unless these words are intended to express the idea of unity, what is their meaning? It is also said that he is "without second," and thus there is no doubt whatever that when the Egyptians declared their god to be One, and without a second, they meant precisely what the Hebrews and Arabs meant when they declared their God to be One. [Footnote: See Deut., vi. 4; and _Koran_, chapter cxii.] Such a God was an entirely different Being from the personifications of the powers of nature and the existences which, for want of a better name, have been called "gods."

Genesis 1:1-4 confirms that the holy spirit was the sun.

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Holy Spirit = sun.

According to the Catholic Enclyclopedia:

Thebes was the No-Amon of the Jews, the Nouit-Amen of the Egyptians (City or Kingdom of Amon), the Nia of the Assyrians, and the Diospolis of the Greeks, which is the exact translation of Nouit-Amen. The Egyptians also called it Per or Pi-Amen, the dwelling of Amon, and also Apet, whence, with the article Ta before the feminine name Apet, is derived Ta-Apet, or Tape, as it is called by the modern Copts, the Thebai of the Greeks. Thebes is mentioned three times in the Bible under the name of No-Amon in the Hebrew text, which the Vulgate each time renders incorrectly by Alexandria. Nahum (iii, 8-10) refers to the victories of Assurbanipal, King of Ninive, over Tanutamen, King of Egypt, as we now know from the cylinders of that sovereign (G. Smith, "History of Assurbanipal", 52-56). It is thought that Jeremias (xlvi, 25) and Ezechiel (xxx, 14-16) allude to the two campaigns of Nabuchodonosor against Thebes, which took place in 583 and 588 B.C.

Originally a mere borough, Thebes grew by degrees, and as early as the twelfth dynasty its sovereigns dominated Egypt. Thenceforth also its god Amon-Ra, to whom the pharaohs had erected numerous monuments, became the foremost of the gods. halted for a time by the invasion of the Hyksos, the growth of Thebes continued under the pharaohs of the eighteenth and especially those of the nineteenth dynasty, who extended their domination to the sources of the Euphrates. When the sovereigns of Thebes had become degenerate they were replaced by the priests of the god Amon, who constituted themselves the twenty-first dynasty. They disappeared in turn and the capital of Egypt was then transferred to the Delta. The city began to fall away, especially after the Assyrian armies had captured and devastated it in 668 and 664 B.C. and Nabuchodonosor had twice rifled it of its treasures. However, as long as there were Egyptian sovereigns, even under the Ptolemies, work was done at the temple of Karnak, which was only abandoned under the Roman domination. Thebes then became a place of pilgrimage and sight-seeing. Christians established their churches in the temples, monks and laymen dwelt everywhere, preferably in the ancient tombs. The great earthquake of 27 B.C. caused some damage, but that which ruined the temples of Karnak must have occurred two or three centuries later. [12]

This is the link between the two. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls Thebes the No-Amon of the Jews, and the Nouit-Amen of the Egyptians. It suggests the link right there.

Luckynumbers (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No where in these long tiresome citations does Budge or anyone make the identification amen<--Amun. Budge speculates on a connection between Amun and Judeo-Christian monotheism, but admits that this is controversial. See http://www.rostau.org.uk/aegyptian-l/faq/week108_budge.txt regarding Budge's reliability.

Your own speculation of an identity between God and the sun in Genesis 1.2 is explicitly precluded by the description of God creating the sun, moon, and stars in Genesis 1.14-19

The use of an Egyptian proper name Amon in the Bible has nothing to do with the Bible's use of the unrelated Hebrew word amen. The Catholic Encyclopedia never makes such a connection either. If your point is to show that Amun was known to the Hebrews—which, however, is not relevant here, but pertains to the Amun article—consider that the biblical references to Amun are hostile. God foretells His punishing the cult of Amon of No, with Nebuchadrezzar as His instrument (Jeremiah 46.25). Nineveh is warned that it too will be destroyed, for it is no better than No-Amon (Nahum 3.8).

These are hardly endorsments. But more important is that Amon is used only to designate a deity and his city; and is no more a loan into Hebrew than other foreign proper names like Nebuchadrezzar and Nineveh. Any connection between Hebrew amen and Amun is pure speculation.

—Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the reason for the name change of Pharaoh Tutankhaten to Tutankhamen if the words are not the same.

Tutankhamen - Egyptian twt-ˁnḫ-ı͗mn; *tuwt-ʕankh-yamān (1341 BC – 1323 BC) was an Egyptian Pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty, during the period of Egyptian history known as the New Kingdom. His original name, Tutankhaten, means "Living Image of Aten", while Tutankhamen means "Living Image of Amen". [ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073904/Tutankhamen]

Why would Tutankhamen change his name from Tutankaten to Tutankhamen? The answer is simple. The official God of Egypt became Amen instead of Aten.

Are you seriously going to say that the yamān part of Tutankhamen's (tuwt-ʕankh-yamān) name was taken from Hebrew. That is a joke. The significance of this change was great in history. They moved from the worship of many gods to just one God. This is the first instance of monotheism that is recorded in history.

Budge did not say that his view was controversial. That is some unknown person that is making that claim.

Luckynumbers (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew root  ??

If the Hebrew use of the word amen comes from aman and its primary use of the word means "so be it", then why would the Israeli Military Intelligence agency go by the name Aman? [13]

You actually mean to tell me that the secret Israeli Intelligence Agency called AMAN is called "so be it".

The Hebrew language as being the root is looking very slim right about now.

Since the Egyptians clearly say that the word means "hidden" or "secret", I don't think its going out on a limb to suggest that the Hebrew people have borrowed this word from Egyptian. The word aman, as used by the Egyptian definition is clearly being borrowed by the Israeli Intelligence Agency.

Why should we assume that the bible makes a different use of the word than what is in use right now in the Israeli government?

Clearly the word aman, has other meanings in Hebrew. Where does it end with this Hebrew root claim? You have got to be kidding.

So you are claiming that the biblical use of amen, which comes from yamiyn, which comes from yaman and is attributed mammon but only because the two letters that are used in amen ... which are mn. You have got to be kidding. So everything with the letters mn are now of Hebrew origin? What a joke.

Clearly the Hebrew word is not the root.

This is clearly a claim that has little substance and the Israeli Military Intelligence Agency's use of the same word "AMAN" is proof that the word is not related to the biblical term in Hebrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckynumbers (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The person Aayko Eyma who was cited is directly contradicted by the Catholic Encyclopedia and he is hardly an authority on the subject matter, unless you want to consider that he wrote a book called Altered States: An Inquiry into the Possible Use of Drugs to Induce Dreams in Ancient Egypt. | http://www.drugwar.com/psychedelicbooks.htm

This guy is all speculation. There is no way that he could possibly be considered "mainstream".

When he said

1) To "prove" that Israel was an Egyptian colony Examples: "Zion derives from On (Heliopolis)"; "the pharaohs were annointed with crocodile fat, crocodile is msH in AE, so that's why the jews called a messiah a massiach"; "IsRaEl means "Ra is El" "; "Miriam derives from Meryamun"; "Adonai derives from Aton" [16]; "the jews say the name of an Egyptian god, Amen, at the end of their prayers" [17]; etc. Sometimes such arguments are used to "support" an ideosyncratic historical theory, but more often they serve as ammunition for some esoterical and/or anti-jewish crusade (all the Wisdom comes from Egypt, Moses was Achnaton, etc etc). It's a whole industry on the Net.

This same person has an agenda and even the Catholic Encyclopedia [14] contradicts him.

The use of different divine names in the Vedas does not warrant us in concluding without other evidence that different deities are designated. On this basis we could conclude, with Tiele, that the Jews at different times worshiped three different gods, e.g. Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai. The use of the different names may be due to personification of natural forces or to crystallization of language, but such a use marks a later stage in religious thought. Why could not these names originally be employed to express the many perfections and attributes of the great God? Thus the Vedic poet writes, "Agni, many are the names of Thee, the Immortal One", and, "The father adoring gives many names to Thee, O Agni, if thou shouldst take pleasure therein". Of the Egyptian deity Ra it is written, "His names are manifold and unknown, even the gods know them not". Farnell states that "many deities, some of whom were scarcely known outside a narrow area, were invoked as polyonyme all possible titles of power being summed up in one word". Thus, the farther back we go in the history of the Indian people the purer becomes theform of religious belief. Idolatry is shown to be a degeneration.

Luckynumbers (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Israel's military intelligence agency is not the subject matter of this article. As you have pointed out yourself (in your original edit) it's name is an acronym and unrelated to the English word Amen.

2) You have made some mistakes in your previous comment, possibly because you do not speak Hebrew. Nearly all semitic words have a tri-consonontal root. The Hebrew word Yamin, which means "right", as in right and left, has a tri-consonontal root of YMN. It is unrelated to Amen or Mamman. The tri-consonontal root AMN (sometimes displayed as 'MN) is the root of Amen and Mamman, as explained in the article.

3) Please do not refer to well thought out edits as jokes. No one here is joking. It is insulting.

4) You have yet to provide any source for your theories regarding a connection between Amen (the subject of this article) and ancient Egyptian.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1.) What is the name an acronym for? Another multi-word to fit the word aman? I guess that it is your fit all word for everything with m and n in Hebrew.

According to The Egyptian Dictionary[15], Budge lists the bible verse Nahum 3:8 in his definition of Amen:

Nahum 3:8 8Are you better than No-amon [Thebes, capital of Upper Egypt], that dwelt by the rivers or canals, that had the waters round about her, whose rampart was a sea [the Nile] and water her wall?[16]

File:Amen-egyptian.png

1) The Israeli military intelligence agency is named "AMAN" an acronym for Agaf ha'ModiiN. The literal translation is "intelligence section". See Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel).

2) Budge does not connect the word Egyptian word Amun to the Hebrew Amen. Rather he speculates that Amun, the Egyptian deity, is referred to by Nahum. Budge does not connect the Hebrew word Amen to Egyptian in anyway.

Please remember the subject of this article is the English interjection Amen, and not all words that sound like it. An article about the word Bark (tree) would not include a discussion of the word Bark (dog). So too, we should not discuss Amun in this article as it is merely a homophone and not related to this article's subject. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen comes from aman ... or is it mn or is it yaman or yamiyn? Which is it? I think it should be mentioned that the origin is unknown due to the fact that the word amen was used in Egypt, the country that the Hebrew people lived in for a long time.

The word amen is too similar to the Coptic and Egyptian use of the word to get around mentioning the fact that the Hebrew people left Egypt, the country which had the god named AMEN at that particular time. I think that is pretty important.

I have provided you source after source. You obviously have pre-existing bias because you are unwilling to present all sides of the use of the religious word "amen". I am not sure if you have an ethnic, racial or religious problem, but you certainly are working hard to eliminate any reference to the word amen in Egypt. I don't mind all sides being presented. The problem is unwillingness to present all sides in a neutral light, so the readers can decide for themselves.

Refer to NPOV The neutral point of view

Luckynumbers (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammarians frequently list ’aman under its three consonants (’mn), which are identical to those of ’amen

What three consonants? Amen has 2 consonants, which are mn. Where is the third consonant?

If it is spelled amzn it still is related to amen? The word that is related to the biblical use is amen or amon. Is Mammon interchangeable with aman or amen in the bible? I have not seen the word aman used in the bible, unless referring to a person. AMAN in Esther?

How many different definition can we possibly get for the word? I have not seen 2 alike. It seems that this is more of an imagined root ... because it is not solid.

ENTRY: mn. DEFINITION: West Semitic, to be firm, confirmed, reliable, faithful, have faith, believe. a. amen, from Hebrew mn, truly, certainly; b. Mammon, from Aramaic mmon, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mmôn, probably from earlier *mamn (? “security, deposit”). Both a and b from Hebrew man, to be firm.

The above comment by Luckynumbers demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Semitic, Egyptian and comparative linguistics. Egyptian and Hebrew are distantly related languages. Hebrew, as other Semitic languages, is built on triliteral roots. The root for the word 'Amen' is אמן; it has three consonants, which are transliterated ʾmn. The first of these consonants is a glottal stop. The Egyptian for 'Amun' is made from three phonetic signs representing ỉ-mn-n. The last sign is a phonetic complement to the second: it suggests the correct reading of the earlier sign. The second sign represents the two consonants 'mn'. The first sign is problematic; most modern Egyptian textbooks represent it as ỉ. Reconstructing phonology from Greek and Coptic is a complex process, but this sound is usually represented by a vowel of the quality 'a' or 'i'. Whereas Egyptian does have what appears to be an equivalent to א, Hebrew does not have an equivalent to the Egyptian ỉ. This certainly does complicate matters. The Amen-Amun argument is mostly postulated on the similarities of the sounds of these words in English, which, obviously, is a weak argument. Whereas a link between the two words is not impossible, there is insufficient evidence to suggest such a link. If there is a link, then it certainly would be at the level of proto-Afro-Asiatic, which render any cultural connexion nigh meaningless. I would ask this user to demonstrate some qualification in this area (anything close would do). If one wishes to remain anonymous, then one should expect to be treated as an amateur. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have never claimed to be an expert. I really doubt that Gareth Hughes is an expert in Egyptology. He obviously has a religious problem with anyone that presents evidence which does not suit his religious taste. Many have claimed that the Egyptian language is a semitic language. You are demonstrating an unfamiliarity with the subject matter and a source of debate that has existed for a long time. Many Egpytologist would disagree with your assessment that "Egyptian and Hebrew are distantly related languages".

According to Sir Wallis Budge's Egyptian Dictionary:

During the years which I spent in collecting the materials for this Dictionary I looked eagerly in the texts for any evidence Egyptian to that would throw light on the relationship of the ancient Egyptian language to the Semitic languages and to the languages of North Eastern Africa. Though the subject is one of considerable importance philologically, it has, never been, in my opinion, properly discussed, because the Semitic scholars who have written about it have lacked the Egyptological knowledge necessary for arriving at a decision, and the Egyptologists, with the exception of the lamented Burchardt, have had no adequate knowledge of Semitic languages and literature. Benfey came to the conclusion that the ancient Egyptian language had close affinity with the Benfey's Semitic family of languages, but then he also said that the Semites Pinionbelonged to a great group of peoples which not only included the

Egyptians, but all the peoples of Africa,1 which is obviously absurd. Although his excursions into Coptic had disastrous results so far as his reputation was concerned, his view that there was a close affinity between the Egyptian and Semitic languages found acceptance with many scholars, among them being E. de Roug, Ebers and Brugsch, all of whom were Egyptologists. Birch's view was that the greater portion of the words [in the ancient Egyptian language] are an old form of the Coptic ; others, no longer found in that tongue, appear (to be) of Semitic origin, and have been gradually introduced into the language from the Aramaic and other sources. A few words are Indo- Germanic." 2 Brugsch stated categorically that the oldest form of the ancient Egyptian language is rooted in Semitic, and he prophesied that one day philological science would be astonished at the closeness of the relationship which existed between Egyptian and the Semitic languages. He was convinced that they had a mother in common, and that their original home was to be sought for on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. 3 Brugsch held these views practically to the end of his life, for in his Die Aegyptologie, Leipzig, 1891, p. 91, he quotes from his Worterbuch the words which he wrote in the preface in 1867. Stern, the eminent Coptic scholar, also declared that the Egyptian had an affinity with the Semitic languages, which shows itself in the pronominal formations and in the roots which are common to all, but thought that it separated itself from its Asiatic sisters at a very early period and developed along lines of its own.4 These views, which the older Egyptologists expressed in general terms, were crystallized by Erman in a paper which he contributed to the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft in iSga.

In this he pointed out in a systematic manner the details of Egyptian Grammar that have their counterparts in the Semitic languages, and printed a List of the words that were common to the Egyptian and Semitic languages. Most of these words had been remarked upon by Brugsch in his Worterbuch, but Erman's List heightens their cumulative effect, and at the opinion. first sight of it many investigators would be inclined to say without any hesitation, "Egyptian is a Semitic language." A very able comparative philologist of the Semitic Languages, Carl Brockelmann, impressed by the remarks of Brugsch quoted above and by this List, says that Egyptian must certainly be included among the Semitic Languages, and that the more the oldest form of it, such as that made known by the Pyramid Texts, is investigated, the more convincingly apparent becomes its similarity to the Semitic Languages. Like Brugsch, he thinks that it separated itself from its sister tongues thousands of years ago, and went its own way. According to him the Egyptian language developed more quickly than the languages of the other Semites, which was due partly to the mixing of the people caused by the invasion of the Nile Valley by Semites, and the rapidity with which the Egyptian civilization reached its zenith, much in the same way as English has gone far away from the other Germanic languages.

So Gareth Hughes is obviously contradicted by some Egyptologist.

In the Egyptian Heiroglyph Dictionary, Budge shows Amen as having the ָ symbol under the aleph א

File:Amen-the-god-amen.jpg

This is the Hebrew word he used:

File:Amen-hebrew.jpg

He even lists the bible verse of Nahum 3:8

8Are you better than No-amon [Thebes, capital of Upper Egypt], that dwelt by the rivers or canals, that had the waters round about her, whose rampart was a sea [the Nile] and water her wall?

The American Heritage Dictionary shows:

ENTRY: mn.

Please refer to Hebrew alphabet and the vowel comparison table.

וֹ ָ ֳ [ɔ] o coke

The English language and the Hebrew language obviously treat consonants differently. I understand that. Saying there are 3 consonants to an English reader means all letters but a,e,i,o, and u. That is being deceptive to readers ... saying there are 3 consonants in common with the word. There are only 2 that are used in that word that are considered consonants in English that are familiar to most English readers. That is being deceptive because there is not really a set rule for which letter the Hebrew writer will use. That is why there is confusion as to what the letters actually are in Hebrew. That is why amen could be derived from amen, aman, amon, amun, etc. There is no set rule as to which vowel will be used in the transliteration of the word.

The Romanization of Hebrewpage and Matres lectionis page discuss this issue a little more.

Luckynumbers (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same one source again and again. The Hebrew given is אמון (ʾāmôn — I do actually read Hebrew, know how it is romanised and how matres lectionis are used). There is no reason to take this at anything more than face value: a Hebrew transliteration of the Egyptian. It has three letters the same as אמן, but does not suggest a deeper connexion than spelling. This is the problem with this argument. I know very well of the relation between Egyptian and Semitic languages. However, Egyptian is generally regarded as a separate branch of Afro-Asiatic. That is, their separation from a common source proto-language is a very long way into the past, so much so that there is very little correspondence between the two branches as we know them. Budge was writing at a period where these little correspondences were new-found and the tendency was to consider Egyptian a Semitic language. This is no longer the case; research has moved on somewhat. There is nothing in the evidence you have presented that says that the Hebrew word אמן is derived from the name of the Egyptian god Amun. The languages have a small, ancient relationship and the two words share some phonemic elements. However, that is the sum of your argument. All the evidence suggests is that such a link is not impossible, and that really is not enough on which to base any convincing argument. Seeing as you have avoided giving any credentials, must we assume you've just read this somewhere and think it's a cool idea? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you are a Christian priest ... your bias is evident. Why would I need to have certain credentials to make an argument? Perhaps that is your way of dodging the facts ! Always a spin.

Luckynumbers (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is considered by me to be a personal attack. This user has failed to mention where I work, which is clearly written on my user page next to information gleaned above (ref. User:Garzo). Whilst I disclose this information so that others might be able to tell where I am coming from, this user chooses to remain anonymous. While this is certainly allowed, it does not permit the abuse of another's disclosure. Resorting to ad hominem statements suggests that Luckynumbers has little more to offer than this. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't take a genius to figure out the relationship between the word amen and the Egyptian God of the exact same name (Amen), in the exact same country that parts of the bible took place in, by the exact same group of people that left Egypt during their exodus, which just so happened to be the most popular religion in the area for hundreds of years, which spurred Tutankhaten to change his name to Tutankhamen (to signify a change in gods). Its just mere coincidence that the gods Amen and Ra were merged to make Amen-Ra ? I guess it is mere coincidence that the Ten Commandments come directly from Ch. 125 of the Book of Going Forth by Day (Egyptian Book of the Dead). You don't think there is a connection? So tell me ... are you the same kind of priest that thinks the world is flat? Same kind of priest that thinks that the sun revolves around the earth? You claim to have credentials .. yeah right. Anyone that can't put this one together really doesn't get it or they do get it and don't want to expose themselves as a fraud.

Luckynumbers (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Basing the claim on what the Bible says is rather suspect. What is said about Habiru is about as historical as this line goes. The historical fact of the Exodus is disputed by academic theologians. Tutankhamen's change of name is due to the falling out of favour of Atenism, which only really proves that Aten lost its political power base. The merging of Amun and Ra is a result of religious change, in which Amun takes on much of the role previously held by Ra in the pantheon. I don't know what more can be made of it. Any connexion between the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead are of interest, but I would ask how strong the connexion really is. Is the connexion stylistic or based on vocabulary? It certainly is not more profound than that. I have made it clear, anonymous user, who I am and that I am liberal academic. Are you turning nasty because you are being pressed to produce real, joined-up evidence for your claims? So far, you have produced little sound-bites from outdated books. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Innapropriate Attack

Luckynumbers, you have crossed a line by your recent posts. Personal attacks such as the one's you have written above are insulting and inflamatory. Your theory regarding a lingusitic relationship between Amen and Amun is misguided. Your disrespectful comments regarding Garzo's religious beliefs are totally uncalled for and quite appalling. Let's tone it down.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the issues, 3 times he has attacked me to try to discredit me (personal attacks), instead of sticking to the issue and facts. I find it quite odd that you did not say "Innapropriate Attack" to his comments which pre-ceded mine. I was being dis-respectful because of his lack of respect for me.

Here they are .... just so you know.

1. Seeing as you have avoided giving any credentials, must we assume you've just read this somewhere and think it's a cool idea? 2.The above comment by Luckynumbers demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Semitic, Egyptian and comparative linguistics. 3.I would ask this user to demonstrate some qualification in this area (anything close would do). If one wishes to remain anonymous, then one should expect to be treated as an amateur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckynumbers (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, your comments do show a lack of understanding of Hebrew. If you are going to step foot into an argument about comparitive linguistics, you should be able to back up your claim, and understand the responses given. Or else have a thick skin. Your response however was a personal attack that went far beyond acceptable discourse.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk)

I have backed up all that I have said. I think that your comments show a lack of knowledge in Egyptology. Don't dish out garbage unless you are willing to receive it. He crossed the line 3 times before I mentioned that priest believed the sun revolved around the earth. God existed way before the Hebrew or Egyptians did. I understand how some want to maintain their "race of god" status though.

Luckynumbers (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have in no way attacked you. I have asked for further information from you, which you have been unwilling to give. I have been critical of your argument. But I have not attacked you. The personal attack is the device of one who feels the argument is not enough to win. I know this stuff. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought

Luckynumbers, before you continue to add the same arguments, and sources over and over again - please consider the following.\

1) The Catholic Encyclopedia which you have used to show an Egyptian connection does not make any claim that the word Amen (so be it) is of Egyptian etymology. It actually states that the word comes directly from the Hebrew.

2) When the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Coptic usage and Egyptian inscriptians, it is referring to Christians in Egypt in the first centuries A.D.

3) When budge brings down a Biblical Hebrew source text (in Nahum) he means that the word Amun (amon, amen) appears in the Hebrew Bible. Literally - that the word Amon in the Biblical Nahum, is actually referring to an Egyptian deity named Amon.

4) None of the definitions in Budge refer to the Hebrew word Amen (Amon is not Amen in Hebrew). And none of the definitions mean "verily" or "so be it".

5) There are no sources that make the claim which you are proposing here. Keep in mind the Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

If you are honest and think about these issues, I am confident that you will realize that your theory is simply one theory that is less well regarded than the others proposed in this article. If you were to pick up an encyclopedia, you would not expect large portions of the article you were researching to be devoted to a theory that is not accepted by scholars. I am perfectly happy to include your theory in the article, as long as A) it is clear that such theories are not main stream, and B) it can be described in a short paragraph. Can we reach some sort of consensus here? Won't you meet us half way?Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt that the theory that I am talking about is less popular or less accepted by scholars. Indeed it is not the mainstream theory. That was never the issue with me. My problem has been with the refusal to show all sides of the issues in an un-biased manner. That is it. I understand the facts, why not show them all? I didn't say that was the Christian churches opinion or how they look at the bible. That is not the case. The god Amen was an important god to the Egyptians and this is the same god that has lived forever ... no matter what language is used. Its probably the language of Adam. I don't know who actually came up with the word. I think that the origin is unknown ... but most likely a Semitic. I just don't know how close the Egyptians and the Hebrew actually are. I have not drawn a conclusion on this so far.

The Catholic Enclyclopedia says that the word was in use by ancient Egyptians. OK. Does their view actually come into conflict with how you view the use of the word? It shouldn't. I am not trying to win converts. I am just trying to show all sides and respect all religions and cultures. I think its only fair. My reasoning is simple. The nature of god is eternal. It crosses all religions and all cultures and has existed since recorded history. I think people should be able to draw their own conclusions on the facts. To be able to make an educated decision as to what the facts are, people must be given all sides. Its that simple.

Luke 24

25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ[b] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

Here is a scripture which I think sums up my position.

Mark 4

The Parable of the Sower 1Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water's edge. 2He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3"Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times."

9Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that," 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown." 21He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? 22For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." 24"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. 25Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

Now, I am willing to compromise. I understand that less popular theories should take a back seat. I am not trying to overshadow any ones religion or beliefs. I just wanted to show that there was a god that was very popular in the country that the Hebrew people left during their exodus that was named Amen. That is it. Those are facts. Let people draw their own conclusions as to how the events took place.

Luckynumbers (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am talking about. A refusal to present all sides of the matter. The other side was not even shown ... yet you dismiss it. lmfao. Such fear of truth!

Amen (also spelled Amun, Amon, Ammon, Aman, or Hammon) is the name of an ancient Egyptian deity (see Amun.)

Beacause of similarities in sound and geography, there is a belief that the Hebrew word Amen is in some way related to the Egyptian deity Amun. Although this etymological theory is considered untenable by modern scholars, it has persisted and is widely repeated on the internet.

Why not present the facts? Scared?

Luckynumbers (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the throw-away line like "probably the language of Adam" that makes your approach look suspect. For something to be included in a Wikipedia article, it needs to be supported by referenced evidence. There is no referenced evidence that says the Hebrew word אמן is derived from the name of the Egyptian god Amun. Nothing that you have presented on this page has said that. You have said a lot of things around the subject, but not dealt directly with it. That is because there is no such evidence. Now, if we have to say anything, we have to say that there's this theory going around, that it's not supported by any mainstream scholar and that the evidence presented for it is circumstantial. To say anything other than this would take us beyond the realm of academic acceptability. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Progress

Luckynumbers, I have removed your recent edits for the following reasons.

1) None of the sources you footnoted make the connection between the Amen which is the subject of this article and the Egyptian word Amen. Some of them do tak about religious and geographic connections between Ancient Israel and Egypt. However, that entire discussion is irrelevant to this article, as has been said again and again.

2) The theory that the Hebrew word Amen is related linguistically to Egyptian has no textual source. I have been looking, and have only found it mentioned on the internet. If you have a reliable textual source, please provide it.

3) "Christian and Jewish Scholars"? This is misleading on several counts. First it is ambiguous - do you mean Scholars of Christianity and Scholars of Judaism. Or, do you mean all scholars who are Jewish or Christian. Neither is accurate. Do Zoroastrian scholars or Budhist scholars advocate your theory regarding the etymology of Amen? No, it is more acurate to say that Academic scholarship...that is, persons learned in Egyptology, Semitics, and Philology do not find the theory you have presented as acceptable.

4) You wrote I just wanted to show that there was a god that was very popular in the country that the Hebrew people left during their exodus that was named Amen. That is it. This is not the place to forward these views. Your comments seem to be more appropriate in the Amun or Monotheism articles. You should realize that such views will still be subject to scrutiny on those pages, but, at least they are conceptually appropriate there. The point which you are trying to make - is not appropriate here.

This article is not about Egyptian influences on the development of the Hebrew religion. Nor should it be. It is about the word AMEN which means verily, so be it. Let's keep it about that word and it's use - Amen. I think we are making progress. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The references I provided were sufficient in backing up the claims that the linguistic, religious, and geographic similarities between the cultures exist. Why not let the evidence stand for itself? Typical apologetics. Those scholars who have confined themselves to Greek and Roman scholarship are the only ones who back your theory. Most universities and colleges only teach your version. They are not typically trained in those works that were handed down to us through other cultures. Therefore, many of those that are only classically trained will have no clue and are not a reliable source for what has come to us through the Egyptians. All the evidence I used was valid. The resources were backing up the claims between the similarities between those specific similarities. If you want me to state that the Egyptians were the first to have a monotheistic God, they were the first to have the concept of eternal life, circumcision, they preserved their dead (like Christians do), they believed in the concept of the trinity, etc. I will do so. The facts stand on my side. I think that its obvious that the concept of eternal life was taken directly from the Egyptians. Why not state it? Perversion of the truth is evident in your utter disregard for the facts. Luckynumbers (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that its obvious that the concept of eternal life was taken directly from the Egyptians. Why not state it?

BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE. This article is not about Amun, it is not about Egyptian religious beliefs, and, it is not about the origins of the Hebrew religion. This article is about an English word which means "so be it".

I thought we were making progress, but perhaps not. I thought you conceded that your theory about a relationship between the English interjection Amen and Amun is not widely accepted, and should not be described in this article on the same level as the generally accepted theory. Moreover, your theory is not just a minority view among scholars. It is completely non-existent among scholars. You have not presented a single source which puts forth your theory. Not one. What you have done, over and over again, is to present your personal arguments for the validity of this theory. Let me remind you that original research is not appropriate in wikipedia (Wikipedia:No original research.) Please do not keep this up. I thought mentioning your theory and placing it in context was a good compromise. If you continue to make un-substantiated claims, or irrelevant comments, I will ask that this debate be settled by an administrator.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk)

No. I have provided source after source after source. You refuse to have anything but the Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

Amen was the god of Egypt during the Hebrew exodus. Why not tell the truth? Why avoid the truth?

In popular culture, it is the prominent theory. Just look and see which films are the most viewed on Google![17] Your theory is based on lies and deceit and doesn't hold up to historical evidence or reality.

Why not mention that Amen was the God of Egypt during the Exodus? Is that not true. Are my sources lying? Is that not relevant to the bible? Or is it that its not telling the story that you want to tell?

Luckynumbers (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the biblical word amen and mammon related? Does amen come from aman, yamiyn, yaman, mn or which? Where is the actual historical evidence of this? I have seen all of them listed ... so which is it? Why aren't yamiyn and yaman mentioned? Strongs Hebrew Hebrew dictionary shows them as the root of the word aman ... which is the root of amen. So how exactly is amen related to the biblical word and if the word amen is related to the biblical use of the word, then is mammon inter-changeable with the word? Did the original text use mn? Did it use yamiyn? Please explain. What year did it enter the Christian texts? What time period? What historical evidence is given to show that the word entered the Hebrew language first? Does historical documents show that the term was in use before the hebrew civilization?

Are you going to mention the only reference in the bible where the word Aman was used? It was an evil person that set out to destroy the Hebrew people in the book of Esther. I think that it should be mentioned that it was the only place Aman was used. Perhaps people will see the correlation between mammon and aman. Its not a nice thing ... its a back-handed insult.

Christians need to know that they are serving two masters in the Jews eyes.

Matthew 6:24

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 16

13No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 16 The Rich Man and Lazarus

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

The word mammon and the use of amen are directly related to Egypt ! They cannot serve the gods of Egypt and still love god!

Please note ... we are deeply indebted to the Jewish faith for this liberty. They freed us from the grips of the tyranny of religion in Egypt. I am not attacking the Hebrew scripture in any way. False teachers are to blame. You can see evidence of their lies right here on this very talk page.

Luckynumbers (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Luckynumber's incessant argument in favour of a fringe theory

It is unacceptable to present a fringe theory that is popularised on the Internet and by small quasi-religious groups as anything more than it is. Mainstream universities are not in the habit of keeping secrets, but work on the principle of open discussion and criticism. Lukynumbers has accused others of blocking his/her ideas for religious reasons, whereas this user's incessant quotation of the Bible and sermonising about the Exodus and freedom. All the evidence is circumstantial, and its presentation is decidedly amateurish. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to smell bunk a mile of. I have presented my arguments against this in a concise and measured fashion, asking for specific information, and disclosing a background in Semitic-language research. If Luckynumbers had any real qualification or training in this area, or he/she had any depth of knowledge, it should have been presented long before now. However, this user has a couple of loosely knitted arguments that have been repeated over and over again throughout this page. Unless, Luckynumbers engages directly with these criticisms, it is time to say enough soap-boxing. If other users feel that a breather is needed, I am happy to give temporary protection to the article page. The community has the right to impose restrictions who are considered to be working to the detriment of the project. Luckynumbers is expected to work with the community, not insult them. I have argued strongly against this user's ideas, rather than his/her person. If this user refuses to work with others, or becomes offensive again, he/she will be blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. I feel we have shown sufficient patience and tolerance here, whereas this user has been aggressive in pushing one idea. I expect Luckynumber's next few edits to be constructive and sensitive to other's concerns now. Blocking users is not a form of sensitive, but a response to the abuse of the wide freedoms that Wikipedia grants to all comers. This is the limit: work with us, or we get a day's holiday from you. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, an edit by [[::User:Nuwaubian Hotep|Nuwaubian Hotep]] ([[::User talk:Nuwaubian Hotep|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Nuwaubian Hotep|contribs]]) pushing this issue again has caused me to protect the page for a period of a week. During that period, administrators may make changes to the article that are felt necessary. If those working on the article wish a change to made they should request it here, on the article's talk page. Text postulating a link between amen and Amun will only be added if agreed by consensus on this page. If, after the page protection expires, this information is inserted without consensus, the page may be protected again and the user concerned may have their account temporarily blocked. The bottom line is always: talk and find agreement and the text goes in, insist on adding it and your right to edit is curtailed. It's simple and sensible. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one agree with the edit to remove the last statement about an "internet theory", however the RFC I enacted on this page proved that a reference of Amen being one and the same of both Egyptian and Hebraic religious systems should be included. Clearly you stepped out of line by blocking my attempts to edit this page based on this. I will have to resort to contacting the Wiki-Admins once again. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And by-the-way your Greeks texts by no means represent any scientific, historical value for the etymological evaluation of the word Amen. Are you kidding me? If anything represents "fringe theory" it's the New Testament. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing.. If I removed an what I thought was an erroneous comment, and you later do an edit removing the entire section, what grounds does that give you to "block" my edits Garth? Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a fringe theory that the Hebrew stonemasons worshipped the Apis bull? The Hebrew people were the Ammonites. That is fact. The Apis bull is the god Amen-Ra. The Hebrew people worshipped that golden bull and that bull was Amen-Ra.

Why couldn't you back up any of the info with fact? I have. Why couldn't you answer my questions? Instead you call me a liar and say that I have some fringe theory. Just admit it. The Hebrew people worshipped the Apis Bull. They were even referred to as the apis. Why not mention Chemosh? That is the relationship.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia -

The Ammonites were a race very closely allied to the Hebrews. One use of their name itself in the Bible indicates the ancient Hebrew belief of this near relationship, for they are called Bén`ámmî or "Son of my people", meaning that that race is regarded as descended from Israel's nearest relative. This play of words on the name Ammon did not arise from the name itself, but presupposes the belief in the kinship of Israel and Ammon.The name Ammon itself cannot be accepted as proof of this belief, for it is obscure in origin, derived perhaps from the name of a tribal deity. A strong proof of their common origin is found in the Ammonite language. No Ammonite inscription, it is true, has come down to us, but the Ammonite names that have been preserved belong to a dialect very nearly akin to the Hebrew; moreover, the close blood relationship of Moab and Ammon being admitted by all, the language of the Moabite Stone, almost Hebrew in form, is a strong witness to the racial affinity of Israel and Ammon. This linguistic argument vindicates the belief that Israel always entertained of his kinship with the Ammonites. The belief itself has found expression in an unmistakable manner in Genesis 19, where the origin of Ammon and his brother, Moab, is ascribed to Lot, the nephew of Abraham. This revolting narrative has usually been considered to give literal fact, but of late years it has been interpreted, e.g. by Father Lagrange, O.P., as recording a gross popular irony by which the Israelites expressed their loathing of the corrupt morals of the Moabites and Ammonites. It may be doubted, however, that such an irony would be directed against Lot himself. Other scholars see in the very depravity of these peoples a proof of the reality of the Biblical story of their incest origin. Ethnologists, interpreting the origin from the nephew of Abraham by the canons usually found true in their science, hold it as indicating that the Israelites are considered the older and more powerful tribe, while the Ammonites and Moabites are regarded as offshoots of the parent stem. The character of Genesis, which at times seems to preserve popular traditions rather than exact ethnology, is taken as a confirmation of this position. But it is not denied, at any rate, that the Hebrew tradition of the near kinship of Israel, Ammon, and Moab is correct. All three, forming together a single group, are classified as belonging to the Aramæan branch of the Semitic race. [18]

So tell me ...how is "so be it" being used in Isaiah 65:15-17?

Please explain this one. It is a direct reference to the God AMUN!

Isaiah 65:15-17 [19]

15And you will leave your name to My chosen [to those who will use it] for a curse; and the Lord God will slay you, but He will call His servants by another name [as much greater than the former name as the name Israel was greater than the name Jacob].

16So [it shall be] that he who invokes a blessing on himself in the land shall do so by saying, May the God of truth and fidelity [the Amen] bless me; and he who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth and faithfulness to His promises [the Amen], because the former troubles are forgotten and because they are hidden from My eyes.

17For behold, I create [a]new heavens and a new earth. And the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

Why lie?

Luckynumbers (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, in case it is needed, that Lucknumbers and those supporting him seem to be so far off the mark that the are, in the immortal words of Pauling "not even wrong". Among other arguments I see here are "The letters A M E N are derived from Egyptian letters to the word must be Egyptian in origin". Well, so are men and mean, so obviously any statisticians must also be closet worshippers of Egyptian Gods. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not argue the facts instead of insults? Luckynumbers (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Back it up. If I'm off the mark than prove it. I have provided solid evidence. Besides that ... your just maintaining a lie.

Luckynumbers (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Egyptian Amen

Was listed in the talk page: Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1979: "A magic word that was interpreted as "let it be" in Hebrew, and used to evoke divine response to a prayer. Such words frequently began as names of deities. Perhaps this may have originally invoked the Egyptian god Amun, "the Hidden One"—the sun in the belly of the Mother before sunrise. Its hieroglyphic symbol meant pregnant belly." (Author footnote, Book of the Dead, 194) Can the admins please add this to the main page and remove the citation as per Garzo has put a block on it preventing users from editing it. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How much of that quote is from Funk and Wagnalls, and how much from the Book of the Dead? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also add the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible [20] to back up the claim. In Jeremiah 46:25 a direct reference to the God Amun is given -

Jeremiah 46:25[21]

25The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, says: Behold, I will visit punishment upon Amon [the chief god of the sacred city, the capital of Upper Egypt] of No or Thebes, and upon Pharaoh and Egypt, with her gods and her kings--even Pharaoh and all those [Jews and others] who put their trust in [Pharaoh as a support against Babylon].

• The quote from Jeremiah isn't really required, as most people who know anything about the subject acknowledge that the god called Amun or other spellings clearly existed. Personally, I can't see any objections to including the information based on the source indicated, although we do tend to favor sources other than encyclopedias where such are available. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are good reasons to doubt the reliability of the source given (Funk & Wagnalls, New Encyclopedia, 1979, Book of the Dead, p.194.) But, I will wait until I see the original to discuss. In the meanwhile, perhaps Nuwaubian Hotep can help me locate the source. What volume should I be looking at p. 194 in? Is the name of the article "Book of the Dead"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Garza violation of Wikipedia Protection policy to disallow others views to be shown.

Removing content and locking a page is a direct abuse of the Wikipedia:Protection policy. It clearly states that

Administrators protecting pages for this reason should do so regardless of the state the page may be in, and not revert to another version, or otherwise modify the page, except as permitted below. Such protection should not be considered an endorsement of that version; see also m:The Wrong Version. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute.

Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page. Administrators making any such change should exercise caution in doing so, and note their change on the discussion page. The page should be unprotected once the dispute has been resolved, so that normal editing may resume.

He clearly violated the Wiki rules. (unsigned)

No he didn't. Garzo hasn't made an edit to this article in many days. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a fringe theory that the Hebrew stonemasons worshiped the Apis bull? The Hebrew people were the Ammonites. That is fact. The Apis bull is the god Amen-Ra. The Hebrew people worshiped that golden bull and that bull was Amen-Ra.

Why couldn't you back up any of the info with fact? I have. I have provided fact after fact only to be called a liar.

Why couldn't you answer my questions?

The Hebrew people worshipped the Apis Bull.

Why not mention Chemosh?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia [22]-

The Ammonites were a race very closely allied to the Hebrews. One use of their name itself in the Bible indicates the ancient Hebrew belief of this near relationship, for they are called Bén`ámmî or "Son of my people", meaning that that race is regarded as descended from Israel's nearest relative. This play of words on the name Ammon did not arise from the name itself, but presupposes the belief in the kinship of Israel and Ammon.The name Ammon itself cannot be accepted as proof of this belief, for it is obscure in origin, derived perhaps from the name of a tribal deity. A strong proof of their common origin is found in the Ammonite language. No Ammonite inscription, it is true, has come down to us, but the Ammonite names that have been preserved belong to a dialect very nearly akin to the Hebrew; moreover, the close blood relationship of Moab and Ammon being admitted by all, the language of the Moabite Stone, almost Hebrew in form, is a strong witness to the racial affinity of Israel and Ammon. This linguistic argument vindicates the belief that Israel always entertained of his kinship with the Ammonites. The belief itself has found expression in an unmistakable manner in Genesis 19, where the origin of Ammon and his brother, Moab, is ascribed to Lot, the nephew of Abraham. This revolting narrative has usually been considered to give literal fact, but of late years it has been interpreted, e.g. by Father Lagrange, O.P., as recording a gross popular irony by which the Israelites expressed their loathing of the corrupt morals of the Moabites and Ammonites. It may be doubted, however, that such an irony would be directed against Lot himself. Other scholars see in the very depravity of these peoples a proof of the reality of the Biblical story of their incest origin. Ethnologists, interpreting the origin from the nephew of Abraham by the canons usually found true in their science, hold it as indicating that the Israelites are considered the older and more powerful tribe, while the Ammonites and Moabites are regarded as offshoots of the parent stem. The character of Genesis, which at times seems to preserve popular traditions rather than exact ethnology, is taken as a confirmation of this position. But it is not denied, at any rate, that the Hebrew tradition of the near kinship of Israel, Ammon, and Moab is correct. All three, forming together a single group, are classified as belonging to the Aramæan branch of the Semitic race. [18]

So tell me ...how is "so be it" being used in Isaiah 65:15-17?

Please explain this one. It is a direct reference to the God AMUN!

Isaiah 65:15-17 [19]

15And you will leave your name to My chosen [to those who will use it] for a curse; and the Lord God will slay you, but He will call His servants by another name [as much greater than the former name as the name Israel was greater than the name Jacob]. 16So [it shall be] that he who invokes a blessing on himself in the land shall do so by saying, May the God of truth and fidelity [the Amen] bless me; and he who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth and faithfulness to His promises [the Amen], because the former troubles are forgotten and because they are hidden from My eyes. 17For behold, I create [a]new heavens and a new earth. And the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible [23]

In Jeremiah 46:25 a direct reference to the God Amun is given -

Jeremiah 46:25[24]

25The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, says: Behold, I will visit punishment upon Amon [the chief god of the sacred city, the capital of Upper Egypt] of No or Thebes, and upon Pharaoh and Egypt, with her gods and her kings--even Pharaoh and all those [Jews and others] who put their trust in [Pharaoh as a support against Babylon].

There, I once again backed up my facts with proof. You are infringing upon the religious rights of others!

Lucky, there is no need to refute when you haven't made your point. Your "demons and deities" book doesn't mention "amen" at all, so it isn't much use. You say "The Hebrews and the Ammonites were the same", but the Catholic Encyclopedia quote says "The Hebrews and the Ammonites were closely related", and says the origin ofthe latter name is obscure. Your translation of Isaiah is interesting, but you haven't shown that it is widely accepted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It backs up the claim that the God Amun was directly referred to in Jeremiah 46:25[25]

25The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, says: Behold, I will visit punishment upon Amon [the chief god of the sacred city, the capital of Upper Egypt] of No or Thebes, and upon Pharaoh and Egypt, with her gods and her kings--even Pharaoh and all those [Jews and others] who put their trust in [Pharaoh as a support against Babylon].

Once again. I backed up my claim.

Luckynumbers (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Jeremiah makes one reference to the God/city Amun in no way backs up the contention that the word Amen is derived from there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not just one reference. I have provided reference after reference. Let the facts stand on their own.

Luckynumbers (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if Jeremiah made a thousand references to Amun the god/city, it doesn't prove anything about the origin of the Hebrew word Amen; any more than the existence of a Japanese tourist guide to London proves that the name London has a Japanese origin. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another reference from The Archaeological Journal By Council, British Archaeological Association, Central Committee: [ http://books.google.com/books?id=UTQGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=apis+amen&source=web&ots=SR4CIELauM&sig=GPwWOh6BmRDkAZ_rguAL7_65_x0&hl=en#PPA15,M1 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckynumbers (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What part of this book am I supposed to be looking at? There seems to be nothing about the Hebrew word Amen in it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good a source Funk & Wagnalls is for this. All of the sources presented have problems, being too general, out of date or too oblique. The burden of proof rests with the propounders of this theory. The evidence does not stretch the void between Amun and amen. The evidence is simply sufficient to say that such a link is not impossible, and that really isn't worth much. One could comment that the theory has a certain currency on the Internet and among certain small groups of enthusiasts, but has no such following in mainstream academia. Essentially, this is a question regarding the academic, not Internet culture. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, which is pretty much what this stretching of scraps of evidence is. I would like to know how Funk & Wagnalls source their comment: if it's unsourced by them, it shouldn't be repeated as fact here. I call on my detractors to have a little more sense than to attack me for religious bias. It is no good to let this page be constantly hack-edited back and forth, and so protection stops that. The propounders of this theory have their chance to get consensus here. The repetition of the so-called references and evidence do not help if they do not stand up to scrutiny. Provide references — yes — but make sure they support the text. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Luckynumbers's latest 'evidence' is a journal article from 1850 titled ON A BRONZE FIGURE OF A BULL FOUND IN CORNWALL. It uses the word 'Amen' on page 15 as a spelling of the name of the god Amon/Amun — this spelling had more currency during this period due to the use of the letter 'e' in semi-academic transcriptions of Egyptian hieroglyphs where no vowel is written. That's it: it does not prove anything. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? So you are saying that history books are backing up my claim. Thanks. Lucky (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder J.R.R Tolkein made it big. He is an OxFord guy just like you. No wonder his "fictional place" named AMAN is taking up the wikipedia page titled AMAN. Should I wonder why a priest from Oxford cares so much?

William Tyndale, who transcribed most of the bible went there. Interestingly, that is where all modern versions of the bible originate. No wonder so many prominent people have come out of that school. All the evidence that I have shown is easily valid. You have not proven any of it to be otherwise. I understand what you are trying to protect. No wonder you can't find a trace of it in an Oxford-English Dictionary. A Cult of Amen existed in Thebes and has a direct blood relationship with the Hebrew people who worshiped the Apis bull. The Hebrew ties to the Ammonites is evidence enough. The Hebrew stonemasons are directly tied to the Ammonites and to the worship of Amen. Keep up the OXford lie! In my mind, Oxford has not produced any real noteworthy work since William Tyndale (in religious studies). They have just maintained the lies that were formed when he translated the bible. Its sad and shameful that some humans lie to maintain ignorance in society to boost themselves to the top. My evidence is solid and my references were valid. The only reason that you say that they are not valid is to maintain Oxford fiction.

Luckynumbers (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a point to the Ammon reference. While the ancient nation was related to the Israelites, they have no connection at all to the amen of this article: Ammon is really `Ammon with ` (an ayin), while ’amen has ’ (an alef).

A discussion of Ammon is irrelevant here. Anyhow, they have no connection to Amun either. —Hanina

Funk & Wagnalls is not good for you? Prior to 1890, Funk & Wagnalls only produced religious text.

If they were not a good source of information, then why would Readers Digest buy them out? Why would Dun & Bradstreet purchase Readers Digest if they were only producing poor quality texts? They were obviously a good enough source for use in the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia and I guess that since they produced The Standard Dictionary of the English Language - that would make them an un-reliable source too? The irony is killing me. The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia is one of the sources listed on the page for the "verily, so be it" part of the amen page. Are we going to have to get rid of that too? LMFAO. They are a good source of information. Once again, the source just didn't provide the information that you hoped for.

"I'm not sure how good a source Funk & Wagnalls is for this. " - Gareth Hughes

Luckynumbers (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be getting desperately silly now. You know where I live, so you attack that. Tolkein? The Oxford lie? You really have lost any credibility that we may have extended you. Now, for one encyclopaedia to use another as a source is a little suspect. I've never seen a copy of Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopaedia, so I don't know if it's any good. If it is any good, it'll source its claim. If there are problems with other sources — like Encarta — we can replace them better ones — how about a Hebrew dictionary for the meaning of a Hebrew word? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning and Concepts

The hieroglyph for the word amen is not the same as the one for the God Amen

. The concepts are different. Lucky (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So too, the Hebrew (Greek and English) word amen is not the same as . The concepts are different. In fact, nowhere does the Egyptian have the meaning or usage as the Hebrew amen (See, Budge.)

Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The hieroglyph for the word amen is

It's not quite the same as the one for the God Amen

. The concepts are different, but very close.

Now I noticed that the Hebrew word for amen (אָמֵן) is similar to some of the other verb constructs of the same concept. So hermeneutically speaking, I know that the term pot-amun was used by Diogenes Laertius to refer to the concept. Is that why the concept is כמוס to most? Just curious. I guess I linked the concept of אָמֵן with ידע רוחני של היועץ? Am I wrong?

Lucky (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LuckyNumbers? Why did you remove my comments on the talk page? That it exceedingly rude! It is totally unnacceptable to remove another's comments while in the midst of a debate. Notice how your comments were not removed, even though I utterly disagree with them. The talk page is a place for comment and debate. Now I will have to go and recreate my earlier message. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That was not on purpose. I thought that I accidentally pasted extra text into the box and so I backspaced it. I didn't realize that was your text. It looked like the images I used earlier, so I thought that I accidently posted a little extra. My most sincere apology. Lucky (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it certainly does. Exact same thing.

,

Strongs #541 'aman - denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225); to take the right hand road:--turn to the right. See aman' (539).

Strongs #539 'aman - denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225); to take the right hand road:--turn to the right. See aman' (539). a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; FIGURATIVELY to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with aman' (541)) to go to the right hand:--hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

3225. yamiyn From yaman; the right hand or side (leg, eye) of a person or other object (as the stronger and more dexterous); locally, the south -- + left-handed, right (hand, side), south.

3231. yaman (yaw-man') A primitive root; to be (physically) right (i.e. Firm); but used only as denominative from yamiyn and transitive, to be right-handed or take the right-hand side -- go (turn) to (on, use) the right hand.

AND FOR OUR THIRD ROOT OF THE HEBREW WORD (STRANGE IT HAS THREE ROOTS????) LOL - yaman, 'aman, AND mn. YOU PICK.

ENTRY: mn. DEFINITION: West Semitic, to be firm, confirmed, reliable, faithful, have faith, believe. a. amen, from Hebrew mn, truly, certainly; b. Mammon, from Aramaic mmon, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mmôn, probably from earlier *mamn (? “security, deposit”). Both a and b from Hebrew man, to be firm.

Hidden one, the name of the devil, is the same as mammon, also called Amen-Ra or Apis the bull. I didn't even mention that amen is a back-handed insult to peasants now did I? Well, I guess if they want to worship their idols and insist that they only have 1 god, thats ok with me. I just don't really see how 3=1, but it takes a dedicated, faithful Christian to rationalize that concept. Of course, the cult of Amen did the same thing. They had the pharoah, the sun and their choice of 1 other god to make the perfect mix. lol

And in case you think there is no other relationship ... as if that wasn't enough. The Gynaecopolite Priest[26] of Oxyrhynchus just so happened to be a "fish" cult. Hmmm? Strange. Jesus's symbol was a fish. I wonder if a fish cult followed him? More than likely, I still see the bumper stickers and they are still saying Amen.

I think that the Hebrew root should be changed to Western Semitic. It's more accurate because the details are obscure. We can leave the debate about Egypt being a Western Semitic language to a later date (perhaps the root of it). I think that Western Semitic is more accurate than saying Hebrew and we can find sources to back it up. The Egyptians quite possibly could be an early root of the Semitic language, but I don't think that we are going to find agreement on that aspect because of the "hidden" religous aspects of some groups involved. So, how about changing the root to Western Semitic?

(Lucky (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, please remember what this article is about. It isn't about anglican priests, it isn't about fish, it isn't about Amun, it isn't about Aman, it isn't about Yamin, or the originsof monotheism and the Hebrew religion. It is about a particular word. Amen. Amen is a word which means "verily", "so be it". It is used liturgically in Christianity and Judaism, and to a lesser degree in Islam. This word, with this particular meaning and usage - can be directly traced back to the Old Testament. This is fact, well sourced - and I trust youwould agree so far.

Your theory, as I understand it, is that there is a direct relationship between Amun, the Egyptian deity, and Amen an interjection of affirmation. While you have shown many sources regarding what Amun means in ancient Egyptian - none of them mean "so be it" or "verily". Nor have you shown any similarity in usage. What you have shown is that Amun appears in the Hebrew bible in reference to Thebes, the center of Amun worship. You have also speculated on a relationship between the words because of geography and sound. Most of all you have shown that you do not understand Hebrew, evident for all to see in your lack of understanding about tri-consonontal roots, and use of a relatively obscure hapax lemonenon (כמוס) instead of the common Hebrew words for secret or hidden (sod or nistar).

Over and over you have revealed that your true intention in this article is not to explain the etymology of amen but to put forward your theories about the origins of monotheism, and place some kind of sinister doubt about the accepted theories (suggesting that linguists and academics are keeping the "true" meaning of the word hidden.) I am tired of having to constantly remind you of the subject of this article. Amen - a commonly used word, whose meaning is known, and usage is wide - which can be traced directly back to the Bible. More than that is pure speculation. There may be a place in the artice to discuss this fringe theory - but it cannot, and should not, be included without some serious qualification that makes a distinction between clear fact and speculation. That could have been the road taken early on. But instead - you continuously refuse to cooperate to make this article better and to the contrary constantly infuse your "theory" with grander conspiracy theories and anti christian rhetoric. I am truly exsaperated. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the use of the word amen in religion. It's not about the use of the word amen only in the modern Christian religion. Is the article titled amen in Christianity in modern times? No. It is titled amen. What I have shown is that the word amen has more than 1 meaning. "So be it" does not even make sense, as used in many of the bible verses. The use of the word amen obviously had a different meaning to the people living in early Christian times. I really doubt that they used the word to mean so be it in Jesus Christ's time. Early Christians would have been invoking the name of a pagan idol if that was the case. You have said they were using the phrase to only mean one thing without backing it up. I understand that many Christians use the word to mean "so be it" in modern times. That was obviously not the case back then. They were not using the word in the bible to mean "so be it". Historically, that was not the use of the word amen. That was not how the word would have been used among the Hebrew people of those times either. Can you provide me with any sort of proof that they were using the word in any other manner in historic times? I know the difference between modern use and historic use, and obviously they are not used the same. You are going to actually try to make the claim that early Christians would use the name of a pagan idol in prayer?

Perhaps the article needs to be divided up into two sections? Amen (historic) and Amen (modern). It is clear that the early church was not using the word in the same manner that you have described. The only reason that I was giving the other supporting information was so that it would be concrete in your mind that the early Christians were invoking the name of a pagan idol. I do not need to be an expert in Hebrew to figure this out. I have never made the claim that I am. I do know how to read and the words clearly don't jibe with historical fact. Clearly the word was not used in the manner during those times as you have just described. Can you prove that is what they meant? All the evidence goes to show that the word was being attributed to a very large and powerful cult that were the contemporaries of Jesus Christ that just so happened to be the Cult of Amen. If Jesus was a Jew, clearly his followers would not have used the word to mean "so be it". He would have been using the name of a pagan idol. You have provided no evidence to support how the word was used among early Christians and in early Judaism. Every single bit of evidence shows that historically Christians did not use the word amen to mean "so be it". This is not a religious sermon and it is not a popularity contest. This is about facts. Are we going to provide facts in this article or not? Lucky (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, I suggest you look at the very top of the article where the following is written. This article is about the interjection. For other uses, see Amen (disambiguation). Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeating many times that "They were not using the word in the bible to mean so be it" does not prove the point. The article "provides the facts," e.g. note 4, which references Deuteronomy 27.15-26. There, as one example among several in the bible, amen is used about 12 times to mean "so be it" in a manner familiar to modern English speakers. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, just so you don't think that 'only a few' people disagree with you, I also find nothing you have written relevant to the word Amen. I'm only not responding because Gareth and Guedalia are saying everything I would (only better). DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen-em-Ope

Proverbs 22: 19 (New American Catholic bible)

• That your trust may be in the LORD [Y@hovah], I make known to you the words of Amen-em-Ope.

Clear evidence of the incorporation of Amen from ancient Egypt.

Source reference: Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant. It is also utter nonsense. Although I do not have the New American Catholic bible, I seriously doubt that it says what Nuwaubian Hotep claims. In any event, the King James translation reads:

That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.

Here is the Masoretic text: להיות ביהוה מבטחך הודעתיך היום אף-אתה

The last words do not read Amen-em-Ope., but rather Hayom af atah which means ..on this day, even to you.

Ultimately, 1) Proverbs 22:19 does not read what Nuwaubian Hotep claims. 2) This entire issue is completely irrelevant. We are not concerned in this article about Biblical referances to Amun.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - I must admit I was wrong regarding my suspicions. I apologize to Nuwobian on that matter. Without getting into a large discussion on this - it appears that the parrallels between Amen-em-Ope and Proverbs 22 have been known for decades. Although the direcion of influence has been debated, with some advocating that the Hebrew Proverbs influenced Amen-em-Ope. See, Walton, (Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels.) Nevertheless, this is still irrelevant to this article.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic "New American Bible" is virtually alone in its rendering of Proverbs 22.19, and for good reason: it seems to have no textual basis for its suggestion, as the masoretic reading of the verse is not problematic, and is even corroborated by the Septuagint here (see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/25-proverbs-nets.pdf). The only defense for the radical emendation of the verse by the "New American Bible" is the identification of the Amenemope influence and its ability to clarify the following verse (22.20), which is problematic. This methodology (emending an unproblematic verse to conform with a suggested reading for a problematic one) is, I think, suspect.

In any case, this has nothing to do with this article, as Guedalia D'Montenegro pointed out [it is relevant to Book of Proverbs, Amenemope (author), and Instructions of Amenemope]. Again, I stress that these issues are not related to amen (interjection) outside of original speculation. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 06:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

a·men [27]

–interjection 1. it is so; so be it (used after a prayer, creed, or other formal statement to express solemn ratification or agreement).

–adverb 2. verily; truly.

–noun 3. an utterance of the interjection “amen.”

4. a musical setting for such an utterance.

5. an expression of concurrence or assent: The committee gave its amen to the proposal.

As you can see ... the utterance of the interjection amen is a noun ! Quit making up excuses. Lucky (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So quit making up excuses. The word is valid as I have shown as related to this article and the resources have been given to back it up. Lucky (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia naming conventions, an article should point to the broader topic. This article should be about the noun ... not the interjection, according to the naming convention. Otherwise, it should be moved to a disambiguation page. Lucky (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to make this article about "amen (noun)" and disambiguate the interjection? And this article would then consist of the one sentence, "amen (noun), an utterance of amen (interjection); a musical setting for such an utterance; an expression of concurence or assent." And then this rather developed article we have here now would afterword be found only by searching "amen (interjection)" or scrolling down the disambiguation page?

That would be senseless. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the short "amen (noun)" article is unjustified, especially because all of amen's uses as a noun are secondary to and derivative from the interjection. Note that a proper noun "Amen (deity)" = Amun is a different word entirely, and is not even listed in your entry above.

The interjection is the primary definition of "amen" and so this article must remain with its title of "amen." When people search for "amen," in Wikipedia or from a search engine, this is usually the article they are looking for. Certainly, few are looking chiefly for "amen (noun)." Any of the moves contemplated in the last post would be opposed by all consciensous editors. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not what I am suggesting. The article should be about the broader topic that has nothing to do with the part of speech. I was merely saying that the use of the word as an interjection is too limited in scope and most of your article would be wiped out because of it. The article needs to be expanded to contain all the uses of the word and not just the Christian use of the word. I am not trying to remove the popular modern definition, I am merely trying to provide an accurate history of the word. I realize this is not a dictionary and that is exactly why the scope of the article needs to be broadened. Clearly the word was used before Christianity arose. You are basically trying to say that no other uses of the word but the Christian use should be given. That is not right. Limiting the article to the use of the word as an interjection is exactly what I didn't suggest. The scope of the word is broader than just an interjection and the article should reflect that. Lucky (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Parts of speech aside, this article is currently covering the English word as described by the dictionary you quoted above. The article covers most of the definitions listed in that dictionary, and all of that dictionary's definitions relate to amen="so be it." Not one of the definitions you quoted says anything about Egypt, or about Amun, or about "hidden," or even about "to establish/nurture." The relationship of this article's subject to Egypt has never been demonstrated beyond speculation. "Clearly the word was used before Christianity arose"—yes, in the Hebrew Bible; or else, if you mean in Egyptian, you're not discussing the same word.

If you wish to note that some people believe otherwise, then it should also be noted that evidence for that belief is lacking. Because, truthfully, until someone finds hieroglyphics using "amen" as "so be it, verily, etc." (which even you have not found, not even in Budge), there is no evidence. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is not lacking. The evidence for it being anything but that is overwhelming. You have tried just about ever tactic to get rid of the word as used by pagans pre-Christ. The reason why you don't want it included is obvious, it points to paganism as central to the Christian belief system. It is becoming quite clear that you are not familiar with the history of paganism and your religious bias is getting a little old. The word never meant "so be it" or "verily", that is why the evidence does not exist. It does not exist in Hebrew either. Those are modern translations. Where is the evidence from a non-religious source that says that the etymology of the word is from Hebrew and means "so be it" or "verily" or "truly"? There is none. You are right, this is not a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia type definition. That means it should include all the uses of the word without exception or your religious bias. If I can't even find two bible translations that contain the same text, that shows that the bible is not a historical document. Why would the Pharaoh be referred to as Pharaoh? All other books use the Pharaohs name. The bible has no historical legitimacy. Lucky (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They are telling you that the unlearned say Amen because they don't know what they are saying. Why would it be capitalized in the middle of a sentence? Why is it almost always capitalized ?? An interjection would typically have an exclaimation mark. 99% of the verses are curiously lacking an exclamation mark. If they were shouting a word, then I would think that it would have an exclamation mark. Common sense (not so common per this discussion) should tell people that too.

This one makes my point for me. It even says that the unlearned say Amen, yet don't understand what they are saying.

1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Revelation 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

This one is the only one I see containing what I would say anything besides the noun, yet it is preceded by the proper noun.

Numbers 5:22 22And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

Psalm 41:13 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.

Jeremiah 11:5 5 Then I will keep the promise I made to your ancestors to give them a fertile land.' And you are living in that country today." I answered, "Amen, Lord."

Jeremiah 28:6 6Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD's house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.

Deuteronomy 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

Nehemiah 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Psalm 89:52 Blessed be the LORD for evermore. Amen, and Amen.

Jeremiah 28:6 Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD's house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Oh ... and its funny how from version to version some strike the word entirely from the verse.

Luke 24:53 (King James Version) 53And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Luke 24:53 (New International Version) 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

Luke 24:53 (The Message) 52-53And they were on their knees, worshiping him. They returned to Jerusalem bursting with joy. They spent all their time in the Temple praising God. Yes.

Luke 24:53 (New Living Translation) 53 And they spent all of their time in the Temple, praising God.

Luke 24:53 (English Standard Version) 3and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Luke 24:53 (New King James Version) 53 and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen.

Why hide the truth? Why hide the facts? Amen is a pagan deity that people were worshiping. Christians are being lied to.

Just keep this one in mind while you are arguing about not including a reference to a pagan deity.

Revelation 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. Lucky (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't proper nouns, as is obvious from the contexts. In English, non-nouns and common nouns are capitalized to indicate the begining of a sentence or quotation. The Greek and Hebrew originals have nothing like capitalization, so the "evidence" you are pointing to is an artifact of translation into English. —Hanina

The context is certainly showing that it is a god ... not a term. They are talking about praising a pagan god named Amen.

Explain why these verses and all the verses capitalize the word Amen.

1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Revelation 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

The Hebrew noun (שם עצם [ʃem 'etsem] is inflected for number and state, but not for case. Nouns are generally related to verbs (by shared roots), but their formation is not as systematic, often due to loanwords from foreign languages.

From the Hebrew4Christians [28] website:

Just as in English, a Hebrew noun is a name of a person, place, or thing.

Once again, you are totally off. Perhaps you need to figure out what a proper noun is and the reason that Amen is capitalized ... even in the middle of a sentence. Lucky (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you surely are our expert. That's why you are repeating a point of Hebrew grammar while quoting the New Testament, which is translated from Greek. Add to that the small flaw that your Hebrew lesson bears no connection to the question of proper nouns; and that the original Greek of the New Testament does not have capitalized proper nouns—and the extent of your grasp of the material is made apparent.

Yes, English bibles regularly capitalize the first word of a quote, "Even in the middle of a sentence." Because that's our convention in English. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? In English we capitalize the names gods. Thats funny .. read the Laws for writing divine names. No one falls for that crap. I am sorry, but that smells of bologna.

Names of God in Judaism

According to Jewish tradition, the sacredness of the divine names must be recognized by the professional scribe who writes the Scriptures, or the chapters for the tefillin and the mezuzah. Before transcribing any of the divine names he prepares mentally to sanctify them. Once he begins a name he does not stop until it is finished, and he must not be interrupted while writing it, even to greet a king. If an error is made in writing it, it may not be erased, but a line must be drawn round it to show that it is canceled, and the whole page must be put in a genizah (burial place for scripture) and a new page begun.

Ha ha ha ha ... that is so funny. Is that so they won't forget which "god" to use? Lucky (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, it's time you stopped this. You accuse others of bias because of their religious views; yet it's clear that you hold very strong religious views and that these cloud your judgement. Your points are mostly irrelevent. We write "The man shouted 'Help'", but never think that "Help" is the name of the deity he is invoking. To give an example of the level of rubbish you are talking, you write "In English we capitalise the names of Gods", which is true, but Gareth's point was we capitalize other things too, which you conveniently ignore. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An overview

I am getting quite fed up with this debate: Luckynumbers quotes the Bible all the time and says that we all have religious bias. The argument is shabby and the thinking is shambolic. Here is a point by point clarification of the academic standpoint.

1. Neither Hebrew nor Egyptian (except Coptic) use capital letters in their respective writing systems.
2. The name of the Egyptian god Amun is represented in hieroglyphs by three phonetic graphs, which are represented by Egyptologists as ỉmn. The hieroglyphic representation is: This is often followed by a determinative graph representing the god, but not adding any phonetic value. The first graph, the reed, is used to represent the letter ỉ. It is a weak sound in Egyptian, sometimes being unwritten in other words. It is believed to have represented an original 'y' sound (the double reed sign is used for a retained 'y'), but seems to have become silent. Transcriptions of Egyptian words in Greek and Coptic, show that an 'a' or 'i' vowel usually follows this silent letter. Budge uses the symbol ȧ for this sign, which is no longer used in modern Egyptology (see transliteration of Ancient Egyptian). The two other signs are more straightforward. The gaming board represents the two consonants mn, and the ripple of water represents the single consonant n, which is used to reinforce the phonetic reading of the gaming board. The Greek transliteration of the name is Ἄμμουν (Ámmoun) and the Coptic is ⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ (Amoun). These give us a suggestion of how the word may have been pronounced at a certain period. They confirm the silence of the ỉ, an 'a' as the first vowel, and give us a full 'u' sound (which is represented by two letters, 'ou', in both Greek and Coptic) for the second vowel. Budge's dictionary gives an 'e' for the second vowel, but it is standard procedure for Egyptologists to add a 'dummy e vowel' in non-scientific transliteration when the hieroglyphic record does not suggest a vowel itself. Thus, Budge writes ỉmn as ȧmen, but the 'e' is a mere convenience; evidence from Greek and Coptic is more supportive of the spelling 'amun'. Egyptologists have further reconstructed the name as 'yamānu' in the most ancient of times, retaining the original pronunciation of the reed sound, having a long 'a' for the second vowel, and having a supposed nominative case marker vowel at the end. Consensus appears to be behind the meaning 'hidden one' for the name.
3. The word 'amen', as we know it in English, has a limited religious use and is of clear Hebrew origin. It is used in Arabic (امين, amīn), Syriac (ܐܡܝܢ, amēn/amīn) and hundreds of other languages worldwide as a response to prayer in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is used as an interjection of affirmation, and is almost entirely limited in use to the religious context.
4. The Hebrew word is written with three letters אמן, read right-to-left. It is transliterated as ʾmn. The first, א, is aleph representing an original glottal stop. It is a full consonant, albeit weak. It should not be confused with the Hebrew letter ayin, ע, which was a pharyngeal fricative (or something quite close to it), transliterated ʿ, which is the first letter of the very different word Ammon. Lucknumbers doesn't read Hebrew, and so makes the mistake of confusing these letters here.
5. Hebrew has no direct equivalent of the Egyptian ỉ, but י (y) would have been the etymological link. Egyptian does have an equivalent to the Hebrew א, which is represented by the Egyptian vulture in hieroglyphs.
6. Hebrew is built on triliteral roots — three-consonant word roots — as are other Semitic languages, and, to some extent, other Afro-Asiatic languages. The Hebrew root אמן has the root meaning of 'making firm, faithful, bringing up (a child)'. Various derived words are used to 'builder', 'foster parent', 'supporting columns', 'agreement', 'faithful(ness)', 'verily', 'support', 'believe' and so forth. It can never mean 'hidden'.
7. Hebrew and Egyptian are distantly related, and it is generally now agreed that Egyptian is not a Semitic language. Any closeness in meanings between similar sounding words could be coincidental, or could be the result of ancient shared ancestry, certainly going back in time before the advent of the Egyptian Amun cult.
8. the Masoretic pointing of the interjection of affirmation based on the root אמן is אָמֵן, which is transliterated as ʾāmēn. It is a fairly regular adjective formation meaning 'firm, true, faithful'. Without a noun to modify it can be the abstract noun 'faithfulness'. It is also used as an adverb/interjection, and is translated 'certainly, truly, so be it!'.
9. The above suggests that 'amen' is a fairly normal Hebrew word that came to have specific religious use, but does not have some mysterious, mystical origin.
10. The name of the Egyptian god Amun does appear in the Hebrew Bible at Jeremiah 46.25. It has an extra letter in Hebrew: אמון, ʾmwn. The Masoretic Text points this as אָמוֺן, ʾāmôn. This could be read as a derived form of the Hebrew root אמן, but, in context, it is more easily a Hebrew transliteration of the Egyptian word as pronounced at that time, with loss of initial 'y' and a u/o second vowel (the Masoretes chose 'ô', but 'û' is equally possible in unpointed text).
11. All of this does not disprove a link between Amun and amen, but it does show that such a link is based on clearly circumstantial evidence.
    • The proponents prefer Budge because he is available out-of-print and on-line and uses a transliteration system that accidentally suits their needs. They don't seem to have access to more up-to-date scholarly sources. I think a blog was used as supporting evidence in the past.
    • The proponents quote the Bible liberally in English, but rarely in Hebrew or Greek (even at all?). There is nothing in these verses that say amen comes from Amun.
    • The proponents use diversionary tactics, producing sources that demonstrate that Hebrew culture had contact with Egyptian culture, which is a rather obvious state of affairs. Such is the comment about Amenemope: it's probably true, but doesn't actually say anything about amen and Amun.
    • The proponents have resorted to ad-hominem attacks and referred to some nebulous Christian/Oxford conspiracy — this is not the realm of conspiracy theorists.

I would like to be acknowledged by the proponents (Luckynumbers and Nuwaubian Hotep) as someone who knows the subject area very well. I would like the ad-hominem attacks and conspiracy theorizing to stop (there are Wikipedia policies against both these things). I would ask them to realise that the quantity of evidence does not prove a case, but the quality. Enough circumstantial evidence (evidence that a link is not impossible) has been presented. To support their claims, the proponents must present direct evidence (clear evidence of a direct link). I am happy to have a mention in the article that this theory exists, that it is not impossible, that there is insufficient evidence (quality not quantity) and that it's popular on the Internet. If the proponents want any more than this, they'll have to present the direct evidence. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To which I can only respond, with deep and conscious irony, "Amen". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Gareth Hughes:

Spell my name right; unlike yours, it's not a pseudonym. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? Lucky (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1. English uses capital letters in their writing system and the names of Gods are always capitalized. Amen would not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence unless it was referring to a person, place or a God.

This is a superficial statement: "say Hello...", "they said Amen...". The rules of English capitalisation are more complex than this. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2. The only reason that you say that " Budge uses the symbol ȧ for this sign, which is no longer used in modern Egyptology (see transliteration of Ancient Egyptian) is because you personally edited the page to reflect that view. That is completely untrue. You edited the page Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian as per your comments on the talk page

Do you have any suggestions regarding transliteration on the Wikipedia? I've simply ploughed ahead and used Gardiner, though I might give up ỉ for i. The next question is about how to render names pronouncable and recognisable. Obviously, we should not replace Ptah with Peteh, but the question remains as to whether we use Seker/Soker, Sopdet/Sepdet/Sothis, Ramesses/Ramses/Rameses &c. Gareth Hughes 23:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is looking good. I've recently been adding hieroglyphics to articles on Egyptian gods, goddesses and pharaohs. I've been using the Gardiner transliteration, as that seems to be used most often. I'm not sure whether all these articles are under the best possible name: for example, I think that 'Soker' is more usual than Seker, even though the name is skr. Once you're happy with this article, it might be an idea to link pages that mention Egyptian transliteration to it. Gareth Hughes 19:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I have used the resources that I have are because they are commonly accepted and publicly accessible to all so that the information can be verified. Unless people can verify the information, it is worthless. The exact evidence that you have stated about how Budge transliterated the word Amen and the method of transliteration is not entirely untrue. However, the problem is that the Hebrew word is transliterated the same way. You have not provided one single source to back up this information that you have provided showing that Budge's transliteration of the Egyptian text was wrong.

You've dug up a quote of mine from three years ago. I have never edited that article to remove Budge's system or impose another one. Don't make half-hearted accusations of cheating. Your phrase "is not entirely untrue" is another personal slight: stop it now! I have never said that Budge was wrong, but have explained what he's doing. You are trying to use him without understanding his methods. There's nothing wrong with an 'ȧ', it's just not used at all nowadays. There's nothing wrong with the 'e', unless you don't realise that it's not based on anything, it's filling space. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

3. I do not disagree with the word being used in a religious context in many religions. That does not mean that the people understand where the word came from.

4. You incorrectly thought that I confused the Hebrew letter ayin, ע with the aleph א.

"The Hebrew word is written with three letters אמן, read right-to-left. It is transliterated as ʾmn. The first, א, is aleph representing an original glottal stop. It is a full consonant, albeit weak. It should not be confused with the Hebrew letter ayin, ע, which was a pharyngeal fricative (or something quite close to it), transliterated ʿ, which is the first letter of the very different word Ammon."

I have not confused the two.

As I posted earlier, but was rudely attacked for doing so -

A - first letter of the Roman alphabet. It evolved from the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph representing the head of an ox. The Hebrews adapted it as the first letter of their alphabet, calling it aleph, meaning ox, from where it evolved into the Greek alpha. The letter a is a vowel.

A, a is the first letter of our alphabet. It was the first letter in the first known alphabet, which dates from about 1850 B.C. It was used by a people called Seirites, who lived on the Sinai Peninsula north of the Red Sea. They took this letter from Egyptian drawings of the head of an ox. The Phoenicians, who lived in the eastern Mediterranean area, also made A the first letter in their alphabet. They named it aleph, which means ox. The Phoenician A looked less like an ox head, and more like the A of the present-day alphabet. The Greeks took the letter into their alphabet and called it alpha. They made slight changes in its shape. The shape of the letter was changed again when it passed into the Roman alphabet.

In the Seirite and Phoenician alphabets, A stood for a light breathing sound, which was not used in pronouncing the letter in the later alphabets.

The aleph in Hebrew comes directly from the head of an OX

.

That is why I made the joke about your school Oxford. I did not realize that you would get upset because you should know that the OX is the same thing as the letter A and the Hebrew aleph א is derived from it.

I provided the link to Talk:Amun (disambiguation) above, where you introduce Ammon as part of your fantasy link with amen and Amun. Doing so demonstrates lack of knowledge of Hebrew and confusion of ע for א. It's there in black and white. Your joke isn't very funny. As no ox nor vulture appears in the hieroglyphs for Amun, all of this begs a big So What again. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

5. You stated that

"Hebrew has no direct equivalent of the Egyptian ỉ, but י (y) would have been the etymological link. Egyptian does have an equivalent to the Hebrew א, which is represented by the Egyptian vulture in hieroglyphs

"

which is where I see the problem.

The etymological link is becoming apparent because you most likely chose the translation of James Henry Breasted, who is respected in his translations, but it is his translation of the German named Adolf Erman's work. Adolf Erman's work was in German and being translated into English. That is why the letters don't match up to Budge's, which use the same hieroglyphs but end up with the ỉ used in the word for amen - shown as ỉmn. Both Breasted and Gardner used ỉmn instead of Budge's translation. Budge was not moving between Coptic to German to English. He was going directly from Coptic to English. If you were using Gardner's translations or James Henry Breasted's translations they were moving from Coptic to German to English. Gardner did his translations and worked with Adolf Erman in Germany and that explains the use of the ỉ instead of the y. Adolf Erman's translations are the source of most of the translations and they show exactly what the translations were, because he was the one that got the original Coptic translation. [http://www.archive.org/download/aegyptenundaegyp01ermaiala/aegyptenundaegyp01ermaiala.pdf ][29]

The German Alphabet shows that -

The letter y (Ypsilon, /'ʏpsilɔn/) occurs almost exclusively in loan words, especially words of Greek origin, although some such words (e.g. Typ) have become so common that they are no longer perceived as foreign. It used to be more common in German orthography in earlier centuries, and traces of this earlier usage persist in proper names. It is used either as an alternative letter for i, for instance in Meyer (a common family name that occurs also in the spelling Meier) or Bayern (Bavaria, but compare Bairisch, 'the Bavarian languages'), or – especially in the Southwest – as a representation of [iː] that goes back to an old IJ (digraph), for instance in Schwyz or Schnyder (an Alemannic German variant of the name Schneider).

About Gardiner [30]-

Gardiner could be considered a self made man because he learned what he could about Egypt on his own. He was able to do this with the financial help of his father, Henry John Gardiner. Alan Gardiner never had to earn a living. The only post he held was a Readership at Manchester University from 1912-14. Once Gardiner graduated from Oxford, he spent three months at his father’s office and then left for Berlin for ten years. During this time he helped prepare an Egyptian dictionary, which was sponsored by four German academies, under the direction of Professor Erman. Gardiner specialized in the study of hieratic writing, making trips to Paris and Turin to copy hieratic manuscripts.

This is absolute nonsense. I'm using contemporary standards in Egyptian transliteration, you're using an out-of-print dictionary. The transliterations themselves mean nothing. This stuff about German interference is bunk, and you're using it to fudge the issue. The issue is that the hieroglyphs present three consonants, and I explained exactly what they are and what they're considered to have sounded like at different periods. Do you have a problem with Germans, or people studying under Germans? This truly is muddying of the waters. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

6. You stated that the Hebrew א does not have an equivalent, which is contrary to what all have said.

According to the Egyptian Grammar with Table of Signs, Bibliography, and Exercises for Reading and Glossary by Adolf Erman, translated by James Henry Breasted

3 probably corresponds approximately to Template:Hebrew.

The Egyptian hieroglyph

(commonly transliterated as 3 and by convention pronounced as |a|) is also referred to as alef on grounds that it has traditionally been taken to represent a glottal stop.

No, you didn't read me right. I explained precisely this above. Read it again. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

7. I do not know how the ancient Hebrew people used the word and neither do you. I know that it was used in ancient Egypt and it was attributed to the God named Amen. Another common term for Amen-Ra was Ba'al, Molech, Mammon, etc. These are all referring to the same thing. I cannot say that the Hebrew people were using the word Amen in the same way as the pagans of Egypt were. I do know that some were worshiping the golden bull named Amen. The change in worship of the monotheistic God named aton or aten to amen or amun did not sit well with the Hebrew people and that probably spurred their Exodus out of Egypt. The fact remains that the word was in use and would have been recognizable to them in the form of the Apis Bull, otherwise known as Ba'al, Molech, Mammon, and Amen-Ra, among many names. Many of them were worshiping the Apis bull and the use of the word Amen would have been attributed to the Golden Bull that Moses was angry that the people were worshiping. This is directly related to the worship of Amen and the use of the word amen in the Hebrew culture prior to Christianity.

Yes, I do: I read the Hebrew Bible in its original. As for the rest of this paragraph: bunk! — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

8. The definiton for 'mn shows that the words are related.

The Semitic word comes from the root - 'mn.

ENTRY: mn. DEFINITION: West Semitic, to be firm, confirmed, reliable, faithful, have faith, believe.

a. amen, from Hebrew mn, truly, certainly;

b. Mammon, from Aramaic mmon, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mmôn, probably from earlier *mamn (? “security, deposit”).

Both a and b from Hebrew man, to be firm.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition -

Mam·mon (mmn) n. 1. Bible Riches, avarice, and worldly gain personified as a false god in the New Testament. 2. often mammon Material wealth regarded as having an evil influence. [Middle English, from Late Latin mammon, from Greek mamns, from Aramaic mmon, riches, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mmôn; see mn in Semitic roots.]

From the Merriam Webster :

Main Entry: mam·mon Pronunciation: \ˈma-mən\ Function: noun Usage: often capitalized Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin mammona, from Greek mamōna, from Aramaic māmōnā riches Date: 15th century

material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence <you cannot serve God and mammon — Matthew 6:24(Revised Standard Version)

[31]

Another sources shows Mammon as -

mammon - A New Testament expression for material wealth, which some people worship as a god. Figuratively, it simply means money.

[32]

The evidence becomes clear that the Hebrew word is directly related to the Egyptian word in the above definitions for Mammon and by their root words that they have in common.

According to Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University

The giving forth and drawing in of breath by the living Apis bull must doubtlessly have seemed, to the Egyptian priesthood, emblematical of the giving and taking away of breath of life,by the creator, Khepcra, over whose emblem, on the tongue of the animal, each breath necessarily passed. An insight may thus be gained of the method by means of which primitive, naive picture-writing could have become more ingenious and intricate until, as actually stated in the hymns, the name of the supreme divinity became " hidden from his children in the name Amen" [literally = hidden], and a " myriad of names, how many are they is not known" had been invented by the scribes, to designate the King (Hak), "one among gods, in form one, the lord of eternity, stability and law."

A definite connection is made with the Apis bull and Amen-Ra in numerous sources. Now, I think that I have established myself as knowing what I am talking about and I think that Gareth Hughes should give me a little bit of credit. I have moved through texts of many different languages and have proven my ability to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs. This is not usually knowledge that is gained in a Greek or Roman University setting and I am sure that Gareth knows that. There are not too many people that take an interest in this kind of stuff, and for that I definitely give Gareth Hughes credit. I also give him credit for his ability to read several languages . He has definitely proved that he has a firm grasp on the subjects at hand. However, I think its about time that he reciprocates. I have shown that there is a definite connection between the worship of the Apis Bull and the Hebrew people. Gardiner's work was preferred over Budge's work for a reason. Budge translated the word correctly into English. When translating from German to English the y was lost. This totally explained the ỉ instead of the y. The connection can be proved without a doubt because Erman's work stood as the basis for the others because of his direct access to the original Coptic texts. Lucky (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of basic reference tools misused there. The ones that talk about amen don't mention anything Egyptian, and the Egyptian source doesn't mention the Hebrew word amen, just that spelling of Amun. It's just a shabby marshalling of cheap quotes. You've read lots of stuff on-line, and believe you know the subject area. However, without a basic training in the field, you misunderstand the basic tools at use here. Transliteration isn't really important. It's just easier to type than hieroglyphs. It's not Budge that's problematic, it's misuse of his system that is setting you wrong. If you want a Y now, have one, but it'll mess up an agreed system, especially when you get to the retained Y (double reed). — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you really have to stop repeating yourself. Everything you write above is irrelevant. Capitalization happens in English at the start of a quoted sentence. None of the etymologies you quote above even mention an Egyptian connection. You have written a lot of stuff about Amen the interjection, and a lot of stuff about Amen the God, but absolutely nothing to establish a connection between the two. If you don't stop doing this you are going to be considered a disruptive editor. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You could not have possibly even finished reading the document before you responded. I know for a fact that you could not verify the information in under 2 minutes. It is 100% valid. I have proven my point without a doubt. You need to quit attacking my beliefs. I am getting sick and tired of you bad mouthing me for no reason. You don't read hieroglyphs, so you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Do you read German? Can you read Hieroglyphys? I do. Your repeated attacks on me are becoming tiresome DJ Clayworth. Grow up. Lucky (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I don't read heiroglyphs, but I do read English, and quickly. I can tell when the definition says the word is from the Egyptian, and no sources you quoted says any of them are. I know that when "Amen" is capitalised it's because it's the first word of a quote. You even gave an example that demonstrated it: "And the women said 'Amen, amen'". If it was a name then the second would be capitalized too. I'm not attacking your beliefs; you are free to believe whatever you want. But you aren't free to write them in Wikipedia without supporting references and a consensus in favour. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have any doubt as to the validity of my arguments, read #5 and #6. Granted, you need to understand a little bit of German and you need to be able to read hieroglyphs to to get it ... but the evidence is there. I am pretty sure that Gareth will understand, if he reads German, he seems pretty bright. Lucky (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass judgement on the Egyptian heiroglyphs, but I do know that your arguments in areas I understand are wrong. The derivation of the aleph from Egyptian also seems to be irrelevant, unless you are claiming that any word with an A in it is somehow releated to the Egyptian. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You will never find out what YHWH means will you? Lucky (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes DJ Clayworth, it is becoming apparent that your knowledge in this area is limited. The Hebrew aleph א coming from the Egyptian

is very relevant. You just don't understand it ... but thats ok. Lucky (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The German is a red herring, and the Tetragrammaton is just another diversion: it's not relevant. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That puts a smile on my face.  : ) How could I guess what your answer was going to be? Red herring? lol Lucky (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Look. You guys think that I have some sort of scheme to prove the bible wrong or something and that is totally not the case. I read the bible daily and I think its a great book that unlocks some of the greatest mysteries of all time. I believe the bible. I believe in God. I am not trying to bash your beliefs, but I feel that some are not being entirely honest. It is well known and a well established fact that the word amen was in use well before the rise of Christianity. I was merely suggesting that a little more of the history of the word be included. The word was clearly in use among pagans well before Christianity and some of those uses have been unknowingly adopted by the Christian people. I think that the bible goes out of its way to make the point about the idols of the pagans before the coming of Jesus Christ. All that I am suggesting is that the we make mention of the use of the word among pagans. I am not trying to disrespect any religion here. I am trying to tell the truth. That is what the bible is about right? Truth. I know thats a hard concept for some to swallow, but the truth is that the pagan use of the word Amen is one of the main reasons that the word made it into the bible. This is no ones fault, but it is a fact that is commonly accepted among all that understand history. It is not a guess, rather historical fact that can't be denied. Lucky (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation

Nuwaubian Hotep - You requested the removal of the WP:NPOV tag from the subject heading, and you additionally requested that "a citation tag be added to the statement 'It has been proposed that Amen is a derivative of the name of an Egyptian god named Amen (Amun).'" And to be brutally frank, I find these requests entirely unreasonable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Amen" states that "Amen is a derivative from the Hebrew verb aman 'to strengthen' or 'confirm.'" This is the very same article that you provided, in order to support your theory that the word has an Egyptian origin. This was just probably a good faith effort on your part, because your argument seems to be based around the following quote, also from the Catholic Encyclopedia article:

"...Finally, we may note that the word Amen occurs not infrequently in early Christian inscriptions, and that it was often introduced into anathemas and gnostic spells. Moreover, as the Greek letters which form Amen according to their numerical values total 99 (alpha=1, mu=40, epsilon=8, nu=50), this number often appears in inscriptions, especially of Egyptian origin, and a sort of magical efficacy seems to have been attributed to its symbol. It should also be mentioned that the word Amen is still employed in the ritual both of Jews and Mohammedans."

I admit, I was confused too until I read the whole thing. The encyclopedia article does not say that the word "Amen" is of Egyptian origin, it specifically states that the Greek letters that form Amen appear in inscriptions of Egyptian origin. Due to seeing nothing on the precise theory that "amen" is a derivative of the Egyptian god "Amon," I can only assume that you formed this theory based on the incorrectly-interpreted information above. The words do sound similar, but until you can provide concrete proof that the word is of Egyptian rather than Hebrew origin, this article should stay right in its present state.

Luckynumbers - Ad-hominem is not the way to resolve issues on Wikipedia, watch your conduct. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment and offers of assistance. But with all due respect, I disagree with the notion that it is fair to cite the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for amen<--Amun. I have explained why on the mediation page. —Hanina

I was confused and interpreted the discussion completely the wrong way. My perspective has since been revised, but thank you for taking notice of it. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)