Talk:Amen/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

More etymology (no, not Egypt this time!)

What about the theory that both amen and hallelujah derive from the earliest time of Hebrew worship long before monotheism, when the Semitic tribes were still worshipping their livestock or cattle (goats, horses, oxen, cows, etc.) whose sacred calls they were imitating? A very late cultural echo of this is being found in the story of the golden calf, told from a time's POV when this archaic cult was considered pagan and unclean already --79.193.36.148 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources for this? Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's reminiscent of the Bow-wow theory of language origins, but as a specific etymological proposal, I'm afraid it's close to being a joke -- neither of those words is close to a "moo" sound, and while certain Levantine/Mesopotamian divinities were symbolically identified with a bull, their worship did not generally take the form of kow-towing to random farm animals. Most importantly, in the Semitic eymological realm, if anything can be adequately explained by use of consonantal roots, this automatically creates a default presumption against any proposed etymology which does not use consonantal roots, unless there is specific historical supporting evidence for the non-consonantal-root etymology (as was discussed in a previous subsection above). AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "moo", I thought more of calls such as "ee-yore" (donkey), a goat's or sheep's "baaawww", and maybe a horse's "neigh". Also, the way I heard it, it was attributed exclusively to religious Semitic expressions at times when other people already spoke Indo-European languages (which originated with PIE c. 4500BCE, just to give you an idea of the historical depth I'm indicating here that would be way before Abraham, of course), for instance, so it's not about the ultimate origins of language in humanity. And I suppose by the rest you're trying to attribute to me the claim that Hebrews used vowels? --79.193.36.148 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely difficult to figure out the meaning in your last two sentences, but it's clear that you will need to learn more about how the morphology of Semitic languages works before you can discuss this subject in a reasonably well-informed manner. AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's you who associated this with the bow-wow theory, after all. That's why I related the location and time behind the idea to you, along with the fact the theory is ONLY about the origin of particular religious expressions in Semitic languages, NOT of human verbal expression in general. As said, this theory locates the origin of these Semitic phrases in animism, shamanism, and/or totemism worshipping animals way after the origin of human language in general, in all of which the imitation of animal calls is very common (imitation due to identification). Who knows, maybe even Yahwe is derived from "ee-yore"? --79.193.36.148 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Semitic context

The etymology discussion seems strongly driven by religious issues and ignores the possibility that "Amen" could be anything other than Hebrew or Egyptian. But the root is also present in other Semitic languages. Since the (presumably Aramaic) usage in the NT is often quite different than the OT usage, the question of a separate Aramaic word not derived from the Hebrew seems at least worth discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.222.218 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments would be more likely to be noticed and replied to if you followed standard Wikipedia conventions, and added them to the bottom of the page...

The root ʔ-m-n certainly occurs in multiple Semitic languages, but the word "Amen" in Judaism of course originated in Biblical Hebrew. In New Testament times, Hebrew was the native mother tongue of few, but it was widely understood among devoted religious Jews, and influential in Jewish religion and culture. AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

2012

Moved new comment here where it'll be noticed. In reply to comment of "07:41, 4 February 2010" above:

Revisiting this page, as I like to do on occasion, has proven to be most enlightening. Guedalia D'Montenegro was kind enough to make an attempt at fulfilling my request for an ancient source outside of the bible for the Hebraic affirmation "Amen". However, after reading this 7th century (BC) specimen, I noticed a couple of interesting and relevant semantical nuances that lend themselves toward substantiating an Egyptian origin for the word. Firstly, Mr D'Montenegro' was correct when he stated that the name: "Ammonia" is considered to have been derived from the Ancient Egyptian God's name (Amen). It was through the Latin/Greek lexicon that the derivation came to us. It's claimed that the chemical was found around the area of Amun's Temple in Rome, and this is how the chemical's name originated. Another word from the same root is ammonium. This is actually a great example of etymology by association rather than a common definition via the root. Unfortunitely we see neither of these etymological principals at work with our Hebraic example. What we do see, rather, is an awkward attempt to disguise this potentially eclectic loanword.

Let's take a fresh look at the phrase provided by Mr D'Montenegro:

"And all my companions can bear witness for me - they who reaped with me in the heat of the [harvest] - yes, my companions can bear witness for me. Amen! I am innocent of any gu[ilt]."

Even a casual glance reveals the modern scribe's successful attempt to create a syntactic discontinuity within the phrase. We can easily see where the scribe has extraposed the constituent (Amen) via simple yet effective syntax. By enclosing the word in quotation marks, followed by an exclamation mark, the scribe created a discontinuity in the flow of the phrase, where one was probably never intended by the original author. This discontinuity creates the illusory position for the declaration of affirmation at the end of the first sentence. The scribe's semantical butchering has left us no choice but to define Amen as a declaration of affirmation rather than the name of the Egyptian God. On the other hand, when we place the word Amen at the beginning of the second sentence, as was the more likely intent of the author, we arrive at what is called a negative confession in Egyptology: "Amen, I am innocent of any gu[ilt]." I truly believe if anyone looks objectively at the evidence, there's really no question as to the origins of the word Amen. Given that, unlike the Egyptian word, we can find no common use, and no derivations for its Hebraic cousin, I believe the truth is simply all too obvious. Manson 09:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

---

Manson48, first of all, you've still never managed to provide a reasonable explanation of Jeremiah 46:25 and Nahum 3:8. Secondly, what you consider "all too obvious" is in fact your purely personal interpretation, and so doesn't belong on a Wikipedia article for that reason. Third, what's the evidence for the worship of Amon (an upper-Egyptian god) in Judea in the 1st millennium BC, at a time when Osiris, and Horus were more prominent in Egypt (see Amun#Decline)? The Old Testament prophets certainly don't seem to be greatly concerned with Amon (as opposed to Baal, Chemosh, Ashtaroth, etc.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Manson48

Blocked and using IP's to make anti-Semitic attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

His purpose here and elsewhere was as a common troll as illustrated by his antisemitic harassment. Rklawton (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user showed time and again that his motives were simply to promote his person views. Good to see that sensible views won this time. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Further Etymology discussion

I tried to add the following in the article, to explain both the meaning of the word, and its etymology. Perhaps I did not follow Wikipedia etiquette, and/or perhaps did not provide sufficient citation, but for whatever reason my contribution was reversed within seconds after addition, so I will put the discussion here, and leave for those of you with more scholarly abilities to address and improve the article:

The word amen (/ˌɑːˈmɛn/ or /ˌeɪˈmɛn/; Hebrew: אָמֵן, Modern: amen, Tiberian: ʾāmēn; Greek: ἀμήν; Arabic: آمين, ʾāmīn ; "So be it; truly") is an acronym for the Hebrew words El Melech Ne'eman (Heb. אֵל מֶלֶךְ נֶאֱמָן; translated "G-d (is the) True King"). That is why it has become used as a declaration of affirmation (in God).

In this context, all the discussion re Hebrew etymology where the root of the word is compared to the words like emuna (faith, belief, etc, hence support, to found, make firm, sure, etc) is troublesome. This is because when you understand that amen is an acronym for אֵל מֶלֶךְ נֶאֱמָן , and since that phrase contains the word נאֱמָן (i.e. truth/faithful), then that whole discussion is circular/tautological. The etymology of the word is from the Hebrew in my view, but because of the acronym, not because it shares its root with the root of words like "truth" or "faith".

Sorry for not knowing the Wikipedia etiquette. I offer the above for you to use as you see fit; include or do not. Finding sources should be easy if you do decide to include. 101.164.113.146 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have an authoritative source for this etymology, then it is acceptable. Otherwise, it looks like a common practice of an imaginative construction of an acronym after the fact. Perhaps the best place for this is List of common false etymologies. I'm not adding it there because I'm not sure that it is common. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just ignoring the condescending part of your response, and focusing on the actual question, one source is Tractate Shabbat 119 of the Babyloneon Talmud. Of course this in itself is troublesome because the Talmud is the oral law so by definition was not initially recorded in written form, and only recorded in written form around 200CE.

101.164.113.146 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That would mean it should go into a section suitable for discussing traditional exegesis and interpretation, but not as a linguistic etymology at the top of the article (see below)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

101.164.113.146 -- This could be an explanation for Amen, but given the existence of the triconsonantal root א-מ-נ, linguists are quite unlikely to give it much credibility as an etymological origin for Amen... AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets Prove a negative!

The section on Etymology states "There is no academic support for either of these views" and this statement is annotated "[citation needed]". What a lovely idea, having to cite something that does not exist! MarcMFresko (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The evidence is that the "Amun" etymology is not listed in standard Hebrew etymological reference works... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"no academic support" again

I don't know how to formally cite this statement in its current form, but nevertheless, if one consults any reputable scholarly reference work on the etymology of English or Biblical Hebrew words, then the Egyptian origins hypothesis of Amen will not be taken seriously (or much more likely will not even be mentioned at all). Removing the statement from the article would result in giving a misleading impression, but I welcome suggestions as to how it can be modified to both keep in line with the scholarly facts and also satisfy Wikipedia technicalities... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Origin

The word Amen is associated with the Egyptian Gods, as in Amen Ra. In Egyptian texts it has been interpreted as, hidden or what is hidden and what cannot be seen. Invisible to the physical eye. Jesus refers to himself as Amen, which makes sense in this context, for God is invisible.208.104.92.210 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Chad Hall

Unfortunately, scholars in relevant areas do not take such assertions seriously for many reasons -- such as that the more correct form of the name of the Egyptian divinity is Amon or Amun, and in the vast majority of cases Semitic-language etymologies proceed by consonantal roots. AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

It worth maybe noting the behavior seen with Judaic, Christian, and Muslim methods of presenting their religions as a religion of excluding the infidel methods of those who believed in many Gods. resulting in not only cutting religious roots from the past but also cutting lingual and cultural roots and as a result cutting historical evidence. In that meaning it become methods of conspiracy against the past , in a trail to gain uniqueness and legitimacy. Not only the word AMEN may be inherited but every single religious story has a match in the previous religions especially in the Egyptian and Aramaic cultures . Cutting roots included Judaic issues whenever these issues contradicted new development , for example ,in Judaism there is no explanation why there is two historic MOSES 1590 BC and 1390 BC. It is academic to present religions from historical point of view , not from religious sources ,which is not only claiming history but literally modifying it, starting from the claim of "first to believe in one God to presenting angels as something OK to believe in , but accuse the previous religions to deal with angels as other Gods , all the way to Quran where beside angels , JINN was presented as living ghosts that jumps from one human body to another.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhKGPslPwwA

Syr10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrian10 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is really not the place to debate such matters. However, in the archives to this page you can read in great detail how etymologies for most words in Semitic languages ordinarily proceed by way of abstract consonantal roots. If you don't know what an abstract consonantal root is, then you're unlikely to be able to discuss the etymology of the word "Amen" in any useful manner... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In the vast majority of cases, Youtube is really not a valid source for anything in the scholarly study of linguistics and religion... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for good answer. not trying to debate, but rather asking why things did not seem right?

I understand that you followed scientific tool, however scientific result is as good as the scientific tool and the scope of view is. the approach of ( Semitic Languages ) seems the reason why you arrived at the result you are at in the article. Semitic languages , is a modern term and tool , and is in my little opinion part of what I call conspiracy against the past, including own past at every single religion , and a trial to rewrite history and OK the bias.If this theory is correct and religions are trying to rewrite history, then no matter how you study the roots , you will finish inside the religious box . Just note how the box was built around Semitic Judaism , Christianity and Islam , as if the rest did not exist. We might have arrived at better view , if the article started from first rise of the term, down ward even though if results shows , Egyptian Amen is not relevant. Syr10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrian10 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421120804/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/75/A0247500.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/A0247500.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Amen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=281
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100203124822/http://www.originofamen.com/ to http://www.originofamen.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222171119/http://www.mandalayoga.net/content/mantra-om to http://www.mandalayoga.net/content/mantra-om
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724232842/http://al-mawrid.org/pages/questions_english_detail.php?qid=93&cid=311 to http://al-mawrid.org/pages/questions_english_detail.php?qid=93&cid=311
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821171433/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Amen to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Amen
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=0543
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=281
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404000613/http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/tut/tut00.htm to http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/tut/tut00.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Etimology

The word "Amen"="Amin", derive from old albanian language Am = Jam = I am  ; en = në = in, which meaning " (old alb) (J)Am en' tâ,(Lit.alb)Jam në të" =(eng.) "I am in to". Ars-compas (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Albanian language isn't significantly attested until around 1500 AD, while Jewish/Israelite use of "Amen" goes back probably approaching towards 1000 B.C., so that there's a gap of well over 2,000 years. As extensively discussed in the talk page archives (1 2 3 4 5), the great majority of etymologies in Semitic languages proceed by means of abstract consonantal roots, so if you don't know what a consonantal root is, you're unlikely to be able to usefully and productively discuss the etymology of "Amen"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's been my experience that Jews actually pronounce the word ah-mane, rhyming with "remain." At least in the synagogues, etc., that I was connected with. PurpleChez (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Chabad.org says that's the Ashkenazi pronunciation. I'm seeing that pronunciation spelled "amein" in some places, but I'm not immediately spotting RSs with that spelling. I'm for including it, though I'd like to see sources on all the pronunciations (even ah-men and ay-men, even if I know those from experience). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

In England the usual pronunciation (Catholic or Protestant) is 'ah-MEN'; in the US it's 'ay-MEN' (at least among Catholics). 2A04:B2C2:1019:3E00:799C:49AF:B7C5:B649 (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Awoman" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Awoman. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#Awoman until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Amen and awomen"

I removed a section about a congressman's use of the above expression because it isn't established as notable and reads as pop culture in an article that isn't discussing a purely pop culture element. But I did some research I think is interesting, that the expression is not totally uncommon in African American Christianity. It would take more time to establish because I'm flying on the seat of my own understanding of linguistics, but I believe the expression is a non-literal bending of the original word and not a misunderstanding of "amen". Check out this book from 2002 which uses the phrase "amen and awomen" as a reflection of their argument for the increased involvement of women in Christianity. Maybe we could have a section on African American usage of 'amen', if there's enough information, and include the congressman's use and a line on the controversy and interpretation of the phrase therein. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Spiritually speaking to say "awomen" linked after saying "amen" is vulgar and shows lack of education of the God who is the "amen"-book of Revelation 3.14. This knowledge of politically correct language is vulgar when admitted in praising God. It is a total disregard of meaning and sense of worship and praise. God is not a man, book of Numbers 23.19, says that God is not a "man" or son of a man, the 'he' to imply 'him' is just a place order of law, as you can see, natural man was created first, then the woman; by definition and purpose in creation by the creator, no one is more than the other, just a matter of order and creation. Same as God, he is not a creation but in order of justice, he is first. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.33.93 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC) FELIX-BIBLE TEACHER, ARLINGTON,VA.

This talk page isn't the right place to assert theological points of view. Reddit is a good website if you're looking for a chat. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It was a fleeting jocular reference (see nonce word). I agree that it has no place on the article until it achieves greater use... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the removal as WP:UNDUE. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How often does "amen" occur in the Qur'an?

How often does "amen" (or cognate) occur in the Qur'an? It would be great thave this, as a companion to the "Hebrew Bible" and the "New Tetamnet" sections. If it occurs in other major religious texts, too, such as those of the Baháʼí Faith, counts from those might be good to include, too. Acwilson9 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Article shows extensive bias against sources that aren't Christian

I see that the above directs any new comments to mountains of original research not present in the article, but simply reading it over tells me that there is a calculated effort here to limit the spread of ideas alternative to 'amen' simply being a Hebrew word. For instance, the article flatly says it means "so be it"... Obviously it's used that way, but does it etymologically and literally construct from Hebrew words for 'so be it'? The article gives no context, doesn't say how and why it means "so be it," simply directing users to a single paywalled source with no page or paragraph number. Furthermore, every time the article in its present state mentions alternative etymologies they're first introduced by who believes it and then, in the case of the Amon origin, quickly excused as inaccurate with little evidence -- that the different languages use different letters to pronounce the same or similar syllables? The article also says that few etymologies include these 'eastern' concepts of Amon and aum, but I've looked through a dozen dictionaries and not one of them mentioned "so be it," either. This excuse that 'those are eastern beliefs, those are eastern thinkers' biases correct data in favor of western thinkers. I also note almost no consensus is given here, either, to present or past Jewish thought, only how they've used it -- you'd think that should be the focus, and not what Christians think about the word. I'm not exactly sure what to do, because it'd take a lot of effort to overcome the cultural-religious and hemispheric bias that I'm seeing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to pursue the Hebrew etymology, then you need to learn about Semitic roots, because it's almost impossible to understand much about the etymology of most Hebrew words without them. Also, the bogus Egyptian God "Amon" connection was not advocated by "Easterners", but by occultistically-minded Westerners. Again, it will be almost impossible to understand why it's wrong without learning something about Semitic roots. AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How is what you posted an argument against anything that I said? I asked for proofs, not for a suggestion that you know infinitely more about the subject and that your guidance should be trusted. That I should read another Wikipedia article until I arrive at the vague understanding that you have. What? Specifically I asked for why the suggestion of other origins was so discounted that they aren't allowed to be discussed here, despite being popular and often-repeated ideas. How will reading the Semitic roots Wikipedia page help me there? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It will help you understand the basics of what is FACTUALLY, BASED ON SCHOLARSHIP AND EVIDENCE a likely etymology vs. an unlikely etymology. On a more practical level, it might save you from the fate of Manson48, who hung around this article for months pushing unscholarly nonsense, refused to learn anything about consonantal roots, ended up annoying people, and is now Wikipedia banned. AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. You don't have to become a linguist, or anything remotely like a linguist, but the consensus of accepted mainstream scholarship is strongly against the "alternative" interpretations (so that they fall under WP:FRINGE), but you won't be able to understand why this is without at least a little knowledge about Semitic roots. I started the Wikipedia "Semitic root" article (as two separate articles, "Triliteral" and "Quadriliteral", later merged by another person), but there are thousands of other people who know as much as I do on the topic... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you that you aren't the headmaster of this page. I don't think you understand what WP:Fringe means. It's not saying don't include or talk about commonly believed but inaccurate information in an article. Actually, the opposite. You're clearly gatekeeping this page and a chain of thought that you've personally curated using Wikipedia pages that you made yourself. You're using the talk page and the archive box to moderate what major opinions on the topic get to be shared. It's not right, but I don't have time to fool with you. If you'd like to talk to dispute resolution I can bring it up and you can deal with parties who are interested in navigating your personal sandbox. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- I've actually edited the article page much less than many other people. If you're completely ignorant of the linguistic issues involved, then you're incapable of even understanding what is and what is not the consensus of mainstream scholarship on the issue, and so it's completely useless for you to try to lay down rigid decrees about the article which for some reason you expect other people to obey. AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt

The idea that Hebrews got the word from an Egyptian past enslaved in Egypt is ludicrous. The Hebrews were never enslaved by Egypt as the biblical myth of Exodus is not a historical event. Jermany84 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Various groups which the Egyptians referred to with semi-disparaging terms translated as "Asiatics", "nomads" and such did percolate in and out of Egypt, and there was some degree of Egyptian cultural influence on Canaan (as found in some archaeological discoveries). However, the idea that the Hebrew word Amen comes from the Egyptian deity name Amun is still nonsense, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Pastafarean use

in Pastafarean, they use "rAmin". check the article, please! 204.100.235.167 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Amein

This was already changed. Which it should have. But just to note, Amen is the conventional English Spelling. There are various ways that christians use to pronounce it in English. From my expirience the most common are /ei-men/ and /a-men/, so Amen is spelled phoneticaly like the later. This is also the Sepharadi/Modern Israeli pronounciation. Amein on the other end looks like it tries to represent phonetically the Ashkenazi Jewish pronounciation. But spelling in English is not necessarily phonetic, and the conventional spelling is already phonetic to other just as legitimate pronounciations.--Nngnna (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of Amen

Is it possible that the word had its origin or influence from the Sanskrit sound Aum? 2400:2411:10C1:A400:EDB0:C1F:FB70:7841 (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Short answer: no. The Red Sea / Yemen / India sailing route didn't develop until after the text of the Hebrew Bible was substantially fixed, and most Semitic-language etymologies actually involve Consonantal roots. Some have suggested indirect Indian influences on Honi the circle-drawer, but that was at a later date, and did not involve sacred texts... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

At least from a naive perspective, the argument that the Egyptian word begins with a Yod is utterly unconvincing, because that would make the Egyptian sound like Yah-men or Jah-men. I have trouble believing that the academics involved were stupud enough to think that this makes the argument forva connection between the two Deities less convincing, unless they were utterly married to the idea that the Hebrews were inspired ex nihilo by God. 184.69.1.190 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the Amun article, where it's said "Ancient Egyptian: jmn, reconstructed as /jaˈmaːnuw/ (Old Egyptian and early Middle Egyptian) → /ʔaˈmaːnəʔ/ (later Middle Egyptian) → /ʔaˈmoːn/ (Late Egyptian); Coptic: ⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ"?? AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Amen origin

The origin of the word Amen is basically from Arabic language but other points of views said that it is from Hebrew which it's delusional, whom Jews inherited the word from Arabic origin. The Muslims used this word as in prayers and (du'a) when concluding a prayer or reciting the first surah Al Fatiha of the Quran. Mer1210 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mer1210 Unfortunately, definitely recorded uses of amen in Hebrew predate the existence of Arabic language texts or any identified predecessor, let alone any recorded uses of amen in Arabic. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Share the resources ? Mer1210 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Qur'anic Arabic is from the 7th century A.D., while parts of the Hebrew Bible go back to at least the 7th century BC... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Again share a trusted resources? I share mine and it's trusted but you don't believe it and give me your opinions without even a resource! Mer1210 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at Book of Psalms (which contains plenty of "Amen"s) and it says "most modern Bible scholars...attribute the composition of the psalms to various authors writing between the 9th and 5th centuries BC", then look at History of the Quran where it says "the revelation of the Quran to the Islamic prophet Muhammad began in 610 CE". That's at least a 1,000 year gap in dates. AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

2024

pretty sure its from the Egyptian origin, 3000 BC. way earlier than this says. Why would they want a wikipedia article to say this word started with Hebrew? 96.19.243.191 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Look at the very extensive discussions of this issue in the various talk-page archives linked above. They say it's Hebrew because it's found in the Hebrew-language Bible, with a whole supporting etymological apparatus of triconsonantal roots. (As has been repeatedly said in the discussions here before, if you don't learn at least a little bit about consonantal roots, which were important for the formation of words in both Semitic languages and the ancient Egyptian language, then you simply won't be able to understand most of the issues involved in improving this article.) Also, the name of the god "Amun" had a "u" or "o" vowel in its second syllable (as clearly seen in Bible verse Jeremiah 46:25), and Amun was originally the local god of the city of Thebes, Egypt, and only attained national Egyptian prominence when that city was the capital of Egypt, as first happened under Mentuhotep II (not "3000 B.C."). Etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)