Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An indication that Amen-Ra was the first “One and Only God” is the fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims are concluding their prayers by invoking his name: “Amen”
[font=Trebuchet MS]Jewish theologians honored their Amen-Ra worshiping Egyptian tutors by having Christianity and Islam chant Amen’s name for ever and ever!!
These are entirely different words. You shouldn't construct elaborate theories like these based on vague visual similarities between words from languages you don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Both the name of the god Amen (imn) in the hieroglyphic script as the word Amen (imn) in Hebrew have identical spelling.
No, they don't. "imn" is not an accurate transliteration of amen, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
In the Wikipedia, however, you will read that the Hebrew word starts with aleph, while the Egyptian name begins with a yodh.
And if you're going to Wikipedia for your information then you've already abandoned any claim to an informed position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
While it is true that the Egyptian name starts with yodh, in the Egyptian script yodh “at the beginning of words is sometimes identical with aleph” as we are informed by Alan Gardiner, the author of the famous “Egyptian Grammar.”
Well, first, the fact that it is "sometimes identical" does not mean it is identical here. You still have to be able to show that that is the case in this instance. By the way, would you mind citing the exact spot where Gardiner makes that statement? Second, even if we do assert the same spelling, these are two entirely different languages from entirely different language families. Third, the Hebrew word אמן comes from a well known verbal root that is absolutely and entirely unrelated to the verbal root of the Egyptian name in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Moreover, it is to be noted that if the term “Amen” was an Hebrew word especially used to conclude prayers, the meaning of the word should have been adopted by Christians and Muslims and not its sound, so that worshippers would know what the meaning was of the word they were pronouncing.
The meaning of the word is pretty commonly known, but the meaning you assert is unrelated to the Hebrew word entirely.
The Spell (it's number not listed in ANET, as it was upublished yet) is 1130...
Thank you. I’ve got Faukner’s translation now.
Wilson I repeat for you four good deeds which my own heart did for me in the midst of the serpent-coil, in order to still evil.
Allen for the sake of stilling disorder
Falkner In order that falsehood might be silenced. or because I desire that falsehood be silenced.
The word translated variously as evil, disorder and falsehood is one of three or four very well known words but most probably the text has the most famous of them all: the term “isft”.
Isft is the opposite of Maat. Maat means “divine bodily purity” and isft means “bodily impurity”.
The man standing in front of the judging gods has to reassure them: “There is no isft in my body”
Which Faulkner translates as: “There is no wrong doing in my body”
The judging gods in the funerary texts are interested in “who” the man in front of them is and not “what he did”. According to their verdict they will classify the man either as a god, a demi-god, a man or an animal.
From the very beginning, therefore, all three translators went off the rails.
The “Weary hearted” according to Allen or the “languid” according to Faulkner are neither weary nor languid because they are a social class of people and since the first people to be made by the creator god were “Languid,” we understand that by that name the primitive people are meant. These primitive people are the ones with the isft in their bodies. When the god in spell 1130 says he wishes to eliminate evil he means to eliminate the primitive ones.
One more word before you get really tired with my analysis.
Allen and mounds will become towns, and towns mounds: one enclosure will destroy the other.
Faulkner and mounds will be towns, and towns will be mounds: mansion will desolate mansion.
No meaning here!
Yet, “mound” is a very well known word and it means “god’s estate”. Every god has his own estate.
From the Pyramid texts (Utt. 477, §961)
Faulkner
The sky is given to you, the earth is given to you, and the Fields of Rushes,the Mounds of Horus, and the Mounsa of Seth; the towns are given to you and the nomes assembled for you by Atum.
Allen
You have been given the sky, you have been given the earth, the Marsh of Reeds, the Horus Mounds and the Seth Mounds; you have been given the towns and the countryside has been joined together for you—by Atum.
These estates are known from various ancient Near Eastern texts, the OT included.
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of Angels of God.(Deu. 32:8)
Enlil, when you marked off holy settlements on earth.
(Hymn to Enlil, the All-Beneficent, line 65)
From the Creation Epic (Enuma Elish):
To the Anunnaki of heaven and earth had allotted their portions. (VI,46)
All the gods apportioned the stations of heaven and earth. (VI,79)
Gishnumunab, creator of all people, who made the (world) regions. (VII,89)
In the Akkadian myth “Etana,” it is the Anunnaki themselves who create the regions.
Old Babylonian version, opening lines:
The great Anunnaki, who decree the fate, Sat down, taking counsel about the land. They who created the regions, who set up the establishments.
All the above are known to the translators but still nothing is conveyed to the reader. The translation of Spell 1130 is completely useless.
These are entirely different words. You shouldn't construct elaborate theories like these based on vague visual similarities between words from languages you don't know.
No, they don't. "imn" is not an accurate transliteration of amen, by the way.
And if you're going to Wikipedia for your information then you've already abandoned any claim to an informed position.
Well, first, the fact that it is "sometimes identical" does not mean it is identical here. You still have to be able to show that that is the case in this instance. By the way, would you mind citing the exact spot where Gardiner makes that statement? Second, even if we do assert the same spelling, these are two entirely different languages from entirely different language families. Third, the Hebrew word אמן comes from a well known verbal root that is absolutely and entirely unrelated to the verbal root of the Egyptian name in question.
The meaning of the word is pretty commonly known, but the meaning you assert is unrelated to the Hebrew word entirely.
Very good post!
I haven't studied the Egyptian language, so it's difficult for me to comment on the history of the word and it's transmission from Egyptian, and even though my Hebrew is more fluent than Egyptian - I haven't studied the word indepth in Hebrew, either - but you are definately able to comment on it better than I am heh heh! Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Thank you. I’ve got Faukner’s translation now.
Wilson I repeat for you four good deeds which my own heart did for me in the midst of the serpent-coil, in order to still evil.
Allen for the sake of stilling disorder
Falkner In order that falsehood might be silenced. or because I desire that falsehood be silenced.
The word translated variously as evil, disorder and falsehood is one of three or four very well known words but most probably the text has the most famous of them all: the term “isft”.
Isft is the opposite of Maat. Maat means “divine bodily purity” and isft means “bodily impurity”.
The man standing in front of the judging gods has to reassure them: “There is no isft in my body”
Which Faulkner translates as: “There is no wrong doing in my body”
The judging gods in the funerary texts are interested in “who” the man in front of them is and not “what he did”. According to their verdict they will classify the man either as a god, a demi-god, a man or an animal.
From the very beginning, therefore, all three translators went off the rails.
The “Weary hearted” according to Allen or the “languid” according to Faulkner are neither weary nor languid because they are a social class of people and since the first people to be made by the creator god were “Languid,” we understand that by that name the primitive people are meant. These primitive people are the ones with the isft in their bodies. When the god in spell 1130 says he wishes to eliminate evil he means to eliminate the primitive ones.
One more word before you get really tired with my analysis.
Allen and mounds will become towns, and towns mounds: one enclosure will destroy the other.
Faulkner and mounds will be towns, and towns will be mounds: mansion will desolate mansion.
No meaning here!
Yet, “mound” is a very well known word and it means “god’s estate”. Every god has his own estate.
From the Pyramid texts (Utt. 477, §961)
Faulkner
The sky is given to you, the earth is given to you, and the Fields of Rushes,the Mounds of Horus, and the Mounsa of Seth; the towns are given to you and the nomes assembled for you by Atum.
Allen
You have been given the sky, you have been given the earth, the Marsh of Reeds, the Horus Mounds and the Seth Mounds; you have been given the towns and the countryside has been joined together for you—by Atum.
These estates are known from various ancient Near Eastern texts, the OT included.
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of Angels of God.(Deu. 32:8)
Enlil, when you marked off holy settlements on earth.
(Hymn to Enlil, the All-Beneficent, line 65)
From the Creation Epic (Enuma Elish):
To the Anunnaki of heaven and earth had allotted their portions. (VI,46)
All the gods apportioned the stations of heaven and earth. (VI,79)
Gishnumunab, creator of all people, who made the (world) regions. (VII,89)
In the Akkadian myth “Etana,” it is the Anunnaki themselves who create the regions.
Old Babylonian version, opening lines:
The great Anunnaki, who decree the fate, Sat down, taking counsel about the land. They who created the regions, who set up the establishments.
All the above are known to the translators but still nothing is conveyed to the reader. The translation of Spell 1130 is completely useless.
I am no expert in Egyptian, but I was under the impression that Maat (or Ma'at) was a goddess who represented law, order, wisdom, etc...
I am not familiar with "divine bodily purity" as a definition for the word. Perhaps, since you are citing a word that is the opposite definition of Maat, this is why the translators chose the English term "disorder" - for that would be the opposite of "order", "law", etc.?
The "disorder" seems to be the state of the Universe before Creation, doesn't it? This is usually typical of ancient Near Eastern Creation accounts.
Which translation of 1130 is useless, in your opinion? Every single one of them?
By the way, would you mind citing the exact spot where Gardiner makes that statement? Second, even if we do assert the same spelling, these are two entirely different languages from entirely different language families.
«Egyptian Grammar”, Third edition revised, page 27 :”The alphabet”
These are two entirely different languages from entirely different language families. Yes! However, theological ideas know no language barriers. There was and there is and there will always be only one god named Amen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I am no expert in Egyptian, but I was under the impression that Maat (or Ma'at) was a goddess who represented law, order, wisdom, etc...
Yes, of course there is the goddess of Maat, but the Egyptologist who supplies the information about the goddess should explain what the word maat meant.
In page 2 of the pdf file of which the link I mentioned in my last post, there is a passage cited where the man being judged informs the judging gods “There is maat in my body” what that maat has to do with the goddess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I am not familiar with "divine bodily purity" as a definition for the word. Perhaps, since you are citing a word that is the opposite definition of Maat, this is why the translators chose the English term "disorder" - for that would be the opposite of "order", "law", etc.?
Yes, you are right. The point is that neither “disorder” or “order” and “law” apply as conditions of someone’s body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The "disorder" seems to be the state of the Universe before Creation, doesn't it? This is usually typical of ancient Near Eastern Creation accounts.
You are again right. The creation of Universe, however, is a theological fantasy and the texts contain no such fantasies. The translators are quite capable of distinguishing between theological fantasies and empirical ideas recorded in the texts but it would have been quite embarrassing and annoying to provide evidence that by “evil” lower class people were meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Which translation of 1130 is useless, in your opinion? Every single one of them?
Yes, every single one of the three of them and also every single one of the approximately 80 translations of the text entitled “the Dispute of a man with his Ba”. Read the relevant information here: http://dtango.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/this-site-is-under-constuction/
Open the pdf file entitled “The Livings” and you will have an idea of how translators manipulate the texts in their translations.
Egyptian Grammar”, Third edition revised, page 27 :”The alphabet”
I'll look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
These are two entirely different languages from entirely different language families.[/i] Yes! However, theological ideas know no language barriers.
Except there's no indication whatsoever that there are theological ideas crossing boundaries here. We have entirely different cultures with entirely different theologies, theogonies, cosmogonies, and cosmologies using entirely different words in entirely different context to convey entirely different meanings. All you have to go on––and I mean absolutely all––is the uninformed comparison of the English transliterations of these two words. There's far too much context to establish the lexical background and meaning of the Jewish use of Amen, and it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the Egyptian Amun. Your argument is just quite common amateur pseudo-scholarship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
There was and there is and there will always be only one god named Amen.
Also completely false. Amun was conflated with several other deities, and when we hit the syncretism of the Hellenistic period he became identified with several others. His form and function was different from generation to generation within the same culture. When you cross cultures you get even different conceptualizations. The same is true of every culture's deities.
«Egyptian Grammar”, Third edition revised, page 27 :”The alphabet”
These are two entirely different languages from entirely different language families. Yes! However, theological ideas know no language barriers. There was and there is and there will always be only one god named Amen.
Yes, of course there is the goddess of Maat, but the Egyptologist who supplies the information about the goddess should explain what the word maat meant.
In page 2 of the pdf file of which the link I mentioned in my last post, there is a passage cited where the man being judged informs the judging gods “There is maat in my body” what that maat has to do with the goddess?
Yes, you are right. The point is that neither “disorder” or “order” and “law” apply as conditions of someone’s body.
You are again right. The creation of Universe, however, is a theological fantasy and the texts contain no such fantasies. The translators are quite capable of distinguishing between theological fantasies and empirical ideas recorded in the texts but it would have been quite embarrassing and annoying to provide evidence that by “evil” lower class people were meant.
Yes, every single one of the three of them and also every single one of the approximately 80 translations of the text entitled “the Dispute of a man with his Ba”. Read the relevant information here: http://dtango.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/this-site-is-under-constuction/
Open the pdf file entitled “The Livings” and you will have an idea of how translators manipulate the texts in their translations.
Daniel's post already gives some very good answers to some of your suggestions, and I think you should consider them. It does require some familiarity with the language (not just with using a dictionary to translate a Hieroglyphic Pictographic Symbol) in order to understand the context and concepts that the translators (many of them well-known experts) are trying to translate, and for what reasons they have chosen one translation over another.
I think it's also important to realize that there were different, evolving traditions concerning religion in Egypt, and these will change how one views the situation.
With that said, I did some reading today about Maat. Maybe this will help. It certainly makes the text 1130 make more sense to me.
The issue of Maat is an important one. As the opposite of Isfet (which seems to represent chaos, injustice, disorder, lying, violence, etc - all the things which Atum seems to disavow having any hand in, besides bringing the very opposite into the world through Creation in which order and justice were established, from that text we discussed - 1130), Maat appears to be the things Atum established, or the principles of it: order, unity, justice, wisdom, virtue, honesty, etc. This is the idea of Maat as - not a goddess - but as a principle, or something that can indwell people, like in the text you quote above: when being judged by the gods, he claims that there is "maat" in his body, he is saying that he is worthy of the afterlife and has led a good life, and all those good things of Maat (as a principle) are inside him. He didn't lie, he didn't cheat, he didn't steal. What he says makes absolute sense. So conditions of disorder, injustice, violence, etc. (Isfet) CAN indwell someone's makeup, just as the opposite (Maat) can indwell in someone's heart, or soul, or whatever.
At some point Maat becomes a goddess and she is the one who weighs the souls of the dead - to see if they have "Maat" within them. This evolution of the principle of Maat to the actual goddess Maat, and her role, makes sense. I think both the above have been sufficiently explained by Egyptologists who have studied the material all their lives. If earlier translations did not supply such information, then it was for various reasons - I assume that Egyptology gains in knowledge as the years go by, just as any other field does that is trying to interpret and understand a culture long gone, which has left material and written remains that are not always obvious or all-encompassing in giving a unified theology. Like the Hebrew Bible - which nowhere gives a statement of it's overall theology, it must be teased out from the individual parts, or by examing the whole.
I think the Middle Kingdom Period shows that lower class people were not "evil" - especially in light of text 1130 from above. Perhaps earlier they were seen as unworthy of immortality, but this idea seems to have changed. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say about the Creation stories. There were several of them, different stories, and some of them quite old. The 1130 text is a Creation story, in a way - or talks about what happened during Creation, at least. Atum is trying to show how he brought order and justice for all out of the chaos of the initial state of things.
[quote=Daniel O. McClellan;23331940]
There's far too much context to establish the lexical background and meaning of the Jewish use of Amen, and it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the Egyptian Amun. Your argument is just quite common amateur pseudo-scholarship.
[/QUOTE]
I do enjoy the pseudo-scholar argument as it has given me lots of pleasure when the time comes to bring forward evidence of the ignorance of the scholars involved with the funerary texts.
The translators of the Egyptian script have failed entirely and their Waterloo is a text entitled "The Dispute of a man with his Ba.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Also completely false. Amun was conflated with several other deities, and when we hit the syncretism of the Hellenistic period he became identified with several others. His form and function was different from generation to generation within the same culture. When you cross cultures you get even different conceptualizations. The same is true of every culture's deities.
You tell that to the author of the Revelation in the text of which Amen occurs as a proper name.
Revelation 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: “These things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of God.”
In all available Greek manuscripts the last phrase reads : «η αρχή της κτίσεως του Θεού». Amen is the beginning of the building of the God. Not the beginning of the God’s creation.
God is a theologian’s creature –Egyptian theologians to be exact- and was originally built as Amen, then became YHWH, Allah and finally Jesus.
The author of the Revelation knew by way of theological channels what Assmann found out by way of studying the Egyptian texts.
It is Jesus who is called Amen in the above passage, and therefore Amen, to the author of the Revelation, meant God.
Last edited by dtango; 03-10-2012 at 04:06 AM..
Reason: grammatical mistakes!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
