Talk:Amen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 [1] to back up the claim. In Jeremiah 46:25 a direct reference to the God Amun is given -

Jeremiah 46:25[2]

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 [3]-

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 [4]

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

Jeremiah 46:25[5]

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[6]

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[7] 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 [8]

–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 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 [9] 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)

Silly how God gets into wikipedia with zero evidence at all, and you are crying about the "circumstantial" evidence for this. Looking at how the article reads now, there is an obvious lack of secular input. Also, no one cares if you are a professor at Oxford (appeal to authority). Evidence speaks for itself.--Anthonzi (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2009 (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)

No one really cares--Anthonzi (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2009 (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 ][10]

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 [11]-

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 א‎.

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)

[12]

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.

[13]

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. It is an established fact that pagans used the word Amen in a religious context well before the bible was created. This is no ones fault, but it is a fact that I have not seen one shred of credible evidence that disputes the use of the word amen among pagan worshipers. Lucky (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica 2008 - Use of the amen in Jewish temple liturgy as a response by the people at the close of a doxology or other prayer uttered by a priest seems to have been common as early as the time of the 4th century BC. This Jewish liturgical use of amen was adopted by the Christians. Justin Martyr (2nd century AD) indicated that amen was used in the liturgy of the Eucharist and was later introduced into the baptismal service.

Lucky (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you for adding yet another source which confirms that amen comes from Hebrew and not Egyptian. And that it's use today has directly evolved from the Hebrew usage.

As for all the above - I am tired of this game. Repeating the same arguments over and over again do not make them true. I have said my peace on this page. I think we can include a sentance or two to your theory - but at the same time make it clear that this is not an accepted etymology.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where were the Hebrew people in the 4th Century BC? They were in Egypt and every single record shows that. The bible even says it. I have not found one shred of evidence from the scientific community that says that the word was not in use among the pagans. None. Not one. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community does not believe your theory. Where are your sources? You see the difference between me and you guys is that I back up my statements with references. Just because you say it isn't so does not prove anything. Provide the evidence that it isn't so. Lucky (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? There's no evidence for pagan use of amen — no 'established fact'. Truth is a rather grand statement: the reasonableness of a hypothesis rests on careful handling and deployment of evidence. In fact, you have demonstrated a meandering, piecemeal approach to sources and argument, which creates a cloud of disconnected factoids rather than a graduated, scholarly argument. Your references are just a random collection of quotes, misused. We have questioned your sources and use of references, and engaged with them. The point is that the burden of proof is for you, not me: if you bring an idea, you have to prove it, not ask others to disprove it. I can show it's not impossible, and I can show that the argument is no stronger than that. In the end, this is not a forum for your ideas. Read the policy documents linked below. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that you are a blatant racist. Lucky (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where were the Hebrew people in the 4th Century BC? They were in Egypt and every single record shows that. [Lucky, March 6]

The 4th Century B.C. is from the year 400 B.C.E. to 301 B.C.E. Jews were living in Judea. The Second Temple stood in Jerusalem. Was there a diaspora Jewish community living in Egypt - yes. But, if you are now suggesting that the word comes from 4th Century Egypt - it can be definitively established that amen is found Deuteronomy, a book which was almost assuredly written by the end of the 7th century b.c.e. The passage you quoted from the Britannica was not talking about linguistic etymology. It was talking about liturgical usage. It is referring to the Second Temple in Jerusalem.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk)

I am fed up with Lucky. His attacks on Garzo should be stopped. I find it ironic that Garzo should be accused of being a "blatant racist" - when Lucky has not identified himself and has previously attacked Garzo's religion. In my opinion, Lucky should be banned from this article.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, explain in what way I'm a racist, or retract your offensive words! — Gareth Hughes (talk) 10:11, 7 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)

Wikipedia policy on original research and fringe theories

I have explained the problems with the Amen-from-Amun theory at great length, and don't feel that it's worth revisiting the arguments again. In the end, this is not a discussion forum, but a place to find consensus on the writing of this encyclopaedia article. Certain policies and guidelines apply to how we do this; relevant here are: no original research and fringe theories. The personal, original research of no user may be used as the basis of any text in an article. If reasonable sources explicitly state that the religious interjection amen is derived from the name of the Egyptian god Amun, then they might form the basis for insertion into the article. The article may not be used to promote this idea or theory. The guidelines for fringe theories should be adhered to here, as we can agree that this theory is not mainstream. The notability of this theory is a serious question. If insufficient references for it are found, it might not be considered worthy of note. Attempts by users to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for a theory is not allowed. Either this article mentions that the theory exists as a non-mainstream idea or it isn't mentioned at all. When the article is free to edit once again, it will be expected that users recognise these rules. Users who do not recognise the rules, may be blocked from editing for a limited period. Please, everyone, read the two policy pages above. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowing other documented, verifiable points of view to be given. An article is supposed to take a neutral point of view and in no way have you been neutral. You are only allowing one side of the picture to be given, when I have provided sufficient verifiable resources for a different point of view. You are pushing your point of view and have thwarted all attempts at a neutral article. Every time someone disagrees with your point of view you threaten them. You can't stop other points of view from entering the article because you don't like them. That is exactly what you have done. In no way has my evidence been lacking or verifiable. The simple fact of the matter is you don't like the point of view and your inability to compromise or to take a neutral stance has become a liability to your credibility. You have repeatedly attacked others for giving a different point of view. You cannot push your point of view on everyone.

Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view areas on Balance, Fairness of tone, Let the Facts Speak for Themselves. I think this will aid in our efforts to create an unbiased article that falls within the wikipedia guidelines.Lucky (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not make this article a dumping ground for every bit of information that you feel is consistant with the amen<--Amun theory. This is not an article about Amun, Aten, Amun in the Bible, or Egyptian influence on Hebrew Wisdom literature; nor is it a folk-etymology free-for-all, where any OR or amateur philology is admissable. That you imagine these scattershot facts and no-so-factual suggestions "speak for themselves," does not legitimize overloading an "amen" article with these otherwise unrelated and tediously long digressions.

If you think your POV is glaringly missing from this version, state it succinctly in a future edit, but admit that the POV is not mainstream (as you did above: 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). Avoid the temptation to back up your POV with facts (and some non-facts) that are unrelated to "amen," even if they are consistant with your POV. None of these long citations actually require your POV, which thus remains unproven. —Hanina 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am satisfied with the current version. The reason is because the phrase "Metaphorically, the term can refer to any group of heartfelt traditionalists or supporters of an authority figure" was added to the Christian portion. That should be good enough. I don't know when that was added, but it is correct. I am not going to argue over the etymology any more because I am sure that a consensus can never be reached and certain people are hell-bent on covering up what the priests of Amen did to their people. They were one of the most corrupt and evil groups ever. Too bad they still exist. Happy Zeus-Ammon [14] and Golden Calf Worshiping. Lucky (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, you've been allowed to fill lines of this page with your crap. Your voice has been heard and your capacity for reasoned thought found wanting. The statement above is yet another madcap conspiracy theory. Hanina has clearly stated why your views are not about addressing some bias, but pushing a fringe theory. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

NO. You have pushed your own version the entire time without respect for others viewpoints. That has become clear. You have gone out of your way to remove any connection to the word amen and you have personally gone out of your way to remove any connection to pagan gods as per your comments on this page and others. Lucky (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been patient with your patent silliness and your personal attacks. I don't see anything wrong in standing up to the half-baked nonsense you're peddling. I don't have to respect your viewpoint. I read it and pointed out its errors. You proceeded to attack me personally, so I really don't fancy hearing you whine much longer. One foot wrong and you're blocked. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The hieroglyph

is the same as [ʔ]mn. That is the exact same thing. It is clear that the sign

and [ʔ]mn are both the word amen. The sign

is not the name of a god. Another sign would follow it to show that it was representing a god, such as

. The Jewish people were in Egypt prior to their exodus and the term

would have been familiar to them and used in the same manner as [ʔ]mn. Is that not correct? Is that a conspiracy theory? I think its rather obvious considering the events that took place in the bible. Now quit attacking me and insulting me and I will do the same.Lucky (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has three flaws in it. I've pointed them out before a number of times. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The hieroglyph

can represent an a, y or ỉ. It is probably an aleph א sound [ʔ]. There has never been a set standard on which one to use. You said "it is just filling space". That is correct. It is just like the א. That is why the 'mn in Hebrew has so many different meanings. It is working from the root. We know that [ʔ]mn is related to the word mammon because of the common root. The same goes for the words yamiyn and yaman. Same mn root ... all Western Semitic. They are all pulling off the same root represented by the mn

.

Revelation 3 (New International Version)

14"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

Revelation 3 (King James Version) 14And 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;

If Amen wasn't referring to a God in Revelations 3:14, then what was it referring to?

Please point me to a resource that shows that I am wrong. I have not seen one resource provided to back up anything. Everything that I have read shows that they would be the same thing. I would like to see the resource that contains this information. I have access to a University library, so unless it is an obscure resource I should be able to obtain it. Lucky (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The United Hebrew Congregation website explains it better than I have. This is from their website [15]

From Chris Koster's book The Final Reformation.

"The Hebrew of the Old Testament reveals to us that the Scriptural Hebrew word (which means: so be it, or verily or surely) is "Amein" and not "Amen". Likewise, the Greek equivalent in the Greek New Testament is also pronounced: "Amein". Anyone can check on this or in Aaron Pick's Dictionary of Old Testament Words for English Readers. Why then, has this Scriptural word "Amein" been rendered as "Amen" in our versions? Again we can see how the pagans have been made welcome, been conciliated, by adopting the name of pagan deity into the Church [of Rome].

"The Egyptians, including the Alexandrians, had been worshipping the head of the Egyptian pantheon, 'Amen-Ra,' the great 'Sun-god,' for more than 1 000 years, BCE. Before this deity became known as 'Amen-Ra', he was only known as 'Amen' among the Thebians. This substitution of 'Amen' for Amein was greatly facilitated by the fact that this Egyptian god's name was spelt in Egyptian hieroglyphic language with only three letters: AMN. Just as we find a similar poverty of vowels in the Scriptural Hebrew, which also only spelt its AMEIN as AMN. However, with the vowel-pointing by the Massoretes the Scriptural word has been preserved for us as AMEIN. On the other hand, the Egyptian deity AMN is rendered by various sources as 'AMEN,' or 'AMUN,' or as 'AMON.' However, the most reliable Egyptologists and archaeologists, (such as Sir E.A. Wallis, Dr. A.B. Cook, Prof. A Wiedemann, Sir W.M.F. Petrie, and A.W. Shorter) as well as some authoritative dictionaries, all render the name of this Egyptian deity as 'AMEN.' "This 'AMEN' was originally the Thebian's 'hidden god who is in heaven' or 'the hidden one, probably meaning hidden sun.'

Funk and Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, describes it: 'AMEN':

In Egyptian mythology, the god of life and procreation ... later identified with the Sun-g-d as the supreme deity, and called 'Amen-Ra'."

James Bonwick, Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, repeatedly and frankly calls the 'Sun-god' of Egypt by its correct name, 'AMEN'. He states on pp. 123-125,:

"AMEN ... is in a sense, the chief deity of Egypt - supreme divinity. Whatever else he be, he must be accepted as the sun ... the hidden god, the solar aspect is clear ... there is the disk of the sun ... the 'sun Amen' ... His identification with 'Baal' ... establishes him as a solar deity."

Smith's Bible Dictionary expresses:

'AMEN' as, "an Egyptian divinity ... He was worshipped ... as 'Amen-Ra', or 'Amen the Sun'."

Herodotos recorded for us how the Greeks identified their 'Zeus' with 'Amen-Ra'.

"'Yahushúa' calls Himself "the Amen" in Rev. 3:14. Substituting a title or name of 'Yahushúa' with the name of the great hidden 'Sky-god' or the great 'Sun-god' of the Egyptians, 'amen' is inconceivable! The difference is subtle, but it is there. By ending our prayers in 'amen' instead of amein [so be it], one could very well ask, "Have we been misled to invoke the name of the Egyptian 'Sun-god' at the end of our prayers"?

Lucky (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In Revelations, why would the four beasts say Amen?

Revelation 5

8And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. 11And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

13And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

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

Lucky (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, you are simply repeating yourself, and repeating things with no relevance. The four beasts say "Amen" for the same reason anyone else does - they are expressing assent. Do you think it is for some other reason? You have no evidence. Also please stop adding the same quotes to this talk page over and over again. We read them the first time, and adding them again is not helpful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Popularity of view among egyptologists and semiticists.

I can't find any Egyptologists who don't in same way support the view that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god named Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).

Popular among some theosophists and adherents of esotericism, but not among egyptologists and semiticists, is the conjecture that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god named Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).

The statement is really misleading and in no way is based on evidence that I have seen. Could you please provide some citations of notable Egyptologist who don't support this view. Sure there are some that don't support that view, but I think the majority probably do. I think you are getting adherents to a religion and Egyptologist mixed up. Some of the most notable Egyptologists and Archaeologists, such as Champollion, Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, Dr. A.B. Cook, Prof. A Wiedemann, Sir W.M.F. Petrie, and many more support this view. I can't find any prominent Egyptologists that don't support this view. Lucky (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, first you need to supply the name of a notable Egyptologist who does support the view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)