Talk:Amen/Archive 3

Having had a quick read.
1 - I'm neither, Christan, Jewish or Islamic - and thus have no religious bias in this subject. You might be able to work this out from my pseudonym :-) 2 - I came to this article after a friend sent me a documentary called the esoteric agenda as a "joke" - they felt that it quoted certain interpretations of historical events and certain interpretations of the origins of religious terminology as "fact" and was thus an example of a certain type of "journalism" we are both frustrated with. 4 - One of the things it stated as fact was that Amens' origins were to be found in the Egyptian Amun 3 - To examine this claim I came here after a google search throw up a number of websites that tend to either have a Jewish, Christian, Muslim religious or theosophical "bent" and thus might  - like the documentary that brought me here - place emphasis on interpretations that agree with their world view.

And what happens when i get here? The following paragraph:"Popular among some theosophists and adherents of esoteric Christianity is the conjecture that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god named Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).[12][13][14] There is no academic support for this view."

Thinking that this might make sense (no offense to the theosophists present) I then noticed the neutrality tag and came to the talkpages.From this I would like to say the following.

The notion that Amen may have it's origins in the god Amun is obviously "out there" in popular culture and been discussed in certain circles. If it is "nonsense" fine, then explain to me - using relevant sources - why it is nonsense, or better still why the argument is not accepted in what ever arcane branch of academia this belongs to.. Don't simply tell me it is not academically accepted and then give no references to support this.

As someone with no particualar view on this subject I would be happy to be involved in the mediation process if asked. Maras brother Ted (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you for taking both this subject and our article here seriously. Please do have a longer than quick look at this talkpage, as all concerned parties have stated&mdash;and restated&mdash;their respective points of view and supporting arguments ad nauseum. Hanina (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand Hanina, and thank you for your reply - so where does the article go from here? A more detailed discussion of the Amen/Amun connection - or lack of one - needs to be inserted in the article. I don't care about individuals basis - simply would like to read a bit more about it so I can make some sort of informed opinion about it, or, if I am then feeling especially bored - go and read some of the articles/books referenced. I would like to do this without having to trawl to pages and pages of pedantic arguments in the talkpages - just as anyone else would who came to the article would like to do i would suspect. Sorry, I'm a simple soul at heart Maras brother Ted (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The length of this talkpage is a testament to how acrimonious this issue can be. We seem to have reached a position in the article that all parties find tolerable, and so I am reluctant to do anthing that might disturb this hard-earned detente.


 * I think that you will agree that a reasonable etymology for 'amen', with adequate references, is provided by the article such as it is. Perhaps unfortunately, or maybe predictably (regardless of ones viewpoint), no discussion of the issue that brought you here is to be found in those sources.


 * This is likely to be seen as unhelpful, but the consensus here among editors, if there be any, is that all readers interpret the facts for themselves. Hanina (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that they can't interpret the facts for themselfs simply because they do not exist within the context of this page. The sentence "There is no academic support for this view." says nothing. I would be curious how Theosophists came up with this notion in the first place - what was the thought process involved. If it was "wishful thinking" it needs to be said. They must have had some reasoning. If the article exists in its present state simply because it wishes not to offend some group then this is not encyclopedic. makes the entire WIKI thing useless really. Might as well consult a "real" encyclopedia. Maras brother Ted (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to do that here. The whole Amen-Amun thing is believed by (and so only of interest to) a very,very small minority. To give any more space to the viewpoint would be violating Undue weight. We have no more need to discuss why they believe this than we need to spend time in the Earth article discussing why some people believe in a flat earth.
 * Now if this belief were an important part of Theosophist belief it would be reasonable to discuss why they believe it in the Theosophy article, but not here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ted, you 'might as well consult a "real" encyclopedia,' but you probably won't find the discussion you're looking for there either. Hanina (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply hanina - yet I must disagree. It is by avoiding the discussion of alternative theories - by people who are experts - that they gain weight in the "lay community". in the earth article there is no need to discuss the flat earth theory because it supplies plenty of evidence to support that it is not true without discussing it. However, here we simply have a mention of the amen/amun thing and then no discussion except to say that there is - as yet no academic discussion of it. Yes I agree, that it gives other ethomologies for the argin of the Amen but this is not enough to dispel the amen/amun stuff. So, where does the interested reader go from here? Either Christian, Islamic, theosophist or mystical Christian, gnostic websites and books - all of which are biased toward a certain version of the "truth". And so the myth - if indeed that is what it is - of the amen/amun connection is perpetuated and grows. One then finds that one comes back to this article in a year or sos time and find that it has been locked for edit warring and accusations of "conspiracy". This is the way that other articles in wiki have gone where similar alternative - and non supported theoroies have been introduced. I will watch with interest, it is a pity this could not be "nipped in the bud" now. Maras brother Ted (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Maras brother Ted - There is plenty of evidence. Amen is directly related to YHVH (the golden calf). Amen-Min who was worshiped by the Coptic people (hence the word copulate) is directly related to the word amen. These guys don't rely on facts of their own. I have already shown the etymological link. Universities and colleges in the West favor translations of the Egyptian word Amen shown as Amun. This is because most of the work of the most popular Egyptologists in the West have translated their work from Coptic to German to English, instead of directly from Coptic to English, as Sir Wallis Budge did. They favor work translated from German to English which causes the word to be spelled as Amun instead of Amen. Gardner and James Henry Breasted, the two sources used in most Roman and Greek Universities are both translated from the works done in German, mainly by Adolf Erman. This is precisely the reason they favor their translations. If you look at the originals in German the words are linked. The vowels are irrelevant in both the Hebrew and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Both words come from the exact same root which is 'mn. They are related etymologically and in every other way. They have shown no proof that the words are not related using factual evidence. Rather, they have dodged the issue and they cry "original research" each and every time you confront them with the issue. In the section above I showed that YHWH and the golden calf are related. The Encyclopedia shows that they are related. That is not my research. I just highlighted the facts.

The hieroglyph for the root of amen is  which means "to abide", as shown in Sir E.A. Wallis Budge's book "Lessons in Egyptian Hierolyphs". It represents the same root, which is mn, as the word amen. Men is the same as Min. There are no vowels. It is directly related.



The reason why they selected the word becomes obvious when you actually understand hieroglyphs.

From the Strong's Lexicon Results for amēn (Strong's G281)

1) firm

a) metaph. faithful

2) verily, amen

a) at the beginning of a discourse - surely, truly, of a truth

b) at the end - so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled. It was a custom, which passed over from the synagogues to the Christian assemblies, that when he who had read or discoursed, had offered up solemn prayer to God, the others responded Amen, and thus made the substance of what was uttered their own. The word "amen" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word in human speech. The word is directly related -- in fact, almost identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence. -- HMM

'''If amen means what they are claiming .... then why is there a feminine form in the Hebrew Lexicon???? That doesn't make sense.'''

Strong's #548 'amanah - feminine of ''amen' (543); something fixed, i.e. a covenant. an allowance:--certain portion, sure.

We have established that amen has a feminine form in Hebrew. How else are you going to dodge the facts? The word omen has just as much relationship to the word aman as amen does.

Here is something really interesting with the word games played in Hebrew. The letter א (alef) is directly derived from Egyptian.

Strongs #505

'eleph - prop, the same as ''eleph' (504); hence (the ox's head being the first letter of the alphabet, and this eventually used as a numeral) a thousand:--thousand.

Strongs #504 - 'eleph from ''alph' (502); a family; also (from the sense of yoking or taming) an ox or cow:--family, kine, oxen.

Strongs #502 - 'alph - a primitive root, to associate with; hence, to learn (and causatively to teach):--learn, teach, utter.

Strongs #543 'amen from ''aman' (539); sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly:--Amen, so be it, truth.

Strongs #542 'aman from ''aman' (539) (in the sense of training); an expert:--cunning workman.

Strongs #539 'aman - 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.

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

Strongs #3225 - yamiyn - from 'yaman' (3231); the right hand or side (leg, eye) of a person or other object (as the stronger and more dexterous); locally, the south:--+ left-handed, right (hand, side), south.

Strongs #3231 - yaman - a primitive root; to be (physically) right (i.e. firm); but used only as denominative from 'yamiyn' (3225) and transitive, to be right-handed or take the right-hand side:--go (turn) to (on, use) the right hand.

Strongs #3226 - Yamiyn - the same as 'yamiyn' (3225); Jamin, the name of three Israelites:--Jamin. See also 'Binyamiyn' (1144).

Strongs #1144 - Binyamiyn - from 'ben' (1121) and 'yamiyn' (3225); son of (the) right hand; Binjamin, youngest son of Jacob; also the tribe descended from him, and its territory:--Benjamin.

Strongs #1121 - ben from 'banah' (1129); a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like ab' (1), ach' (251), etc.)):--+ afflicted, age, (Ahoh-) (Ammon-) (Hachmon-) (Lev-)ite, (anoint-)ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, (Assyr-) (Babylon-) (Egypt-) (Grec-)ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant(-est), whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

Strong's #549 - 'Amanah the same as ''amanah' (548); Amanah, a mountain near Damascus:--Amana.

Strong's #548 'amanah - feminine of ''amen' (543); something fixed, i.e. a covenant. an allowance:--certain portion, sure.

Strong's #550 - 'Amnown or uAmiynown {am-ee-nohn'}; from ''aman' (539); faithful; Amnon (or Aminon), a son of David:--Amnon.

Strong's #544 - 'omen pronounced oh-men' from ''aman' (539); verity:--truth.

Strongs #545 - feminine of ''omen' (544) (in the specific sense of training); tutelage:--brought up.

Strong's #546 - 'omnah - feminine form of ''omen' (544) (in its usual sense); adverb, surely:--indeed.

Strong's #526 - 'Amown the same as ''amown' (525); Amon, the name of three Israelites:--Amon.

Strong's #525 - 'amown from aman' (539), probably in the sense of training; skilled, i.e. an architect (like aman' (542)):--one brought up.

Strong's #527 - 'amown - a variation for 'hamown' (1995); a throng of people:--multitude.

Strong's #528 - 'Amown - of Egyptian derivation; Amon (i.e. Ammon or Amn), a deity of Egypt (used only as an adjunct of 'No'' (4996)):--multitude, populous.

An adjunct is

1: something joined or added to another thing but not essentially a part of it2 a: a word or word group that qualifies or completes the meaning of another word or other words and is not itself a main structural element in its sentence b: an adverb or adverbial (as heartily in “They ate heartily” or at noon in “We left at noon”) attached to the verb of a clause especially to express a relation of time, place, frequency, degree, or manner — compare disjunct 23 a: an associate or assistant of another b: an adjunct faculty member at a college or university

Strong's #4996 - No'- of Egyptian origin; No (i.e. Thebes), the capital of Upper Egypt:--No. Compare ''Amown' (528).

So when are we going to list the feminine form of amen on the page? How about omen? I didn't even dive into all the other words that are associated with aman in the same way as the Hebrew word amen. Shall we?

Amon: a son of Manasseh; the father of Josiah and an ancestor of Jesus governor of the Town of Samaria under King Ahab son and successor of King Manasseh a man who, with his sons, were servants of Solomon

faithful; true

NET Glossary: (1) king of Judah and son of Manesseh (2 Kgs 21:18-26); (2) governor of the city of Samaria (1 Kgs 22:26); (3) an Egyptian god (mentioned in Jer 46:25) usually shown with a human body and the head of a ram, worshiped in the city of Thebes, the capital of Upper Egypt

Greek Strongs #300: Amwn Amon Amon = "builder"

1) a king of Judah, son of Manasseh, and father of Josiah 300 Amon am-one' of Hebrew origin (526); Amon, an Israelite:-Amon. see HEBREW for 0526

Hebrew Strongs #0526: Nwma 'Amown Amon = "skilled workman" or "master workman"

1) a king of Judah, son of Manasseh 2) a governor of Samaria 3) a descendant of a servant of Solomon 526 'Amown aw-mone' the same as 525; Amon, the name of three Israelites:-Amon. see HEBREW for 0525

Amon [EBD] builder.

(1.) The governor of Samaria in the time of Ahab. The prophet Micaiah was committed to his custody (1 Kings 22:26; 2 Chr. 18:25).

(2.) The son of Manasseh, and fourteenth king of Judah. He restored idolatry, and set up the images which his father had cast down. Zephaniah (1:4; 3:4, 11) refers to the moral depravity prevailing in this king's reign.

He was assassinated (2 Kings 21:18-26: 2 Chr. 33:20-25) by his own servants, who conspired against him.

(3.) An Egyptian god, usually depicted with a human body and the head of a ram, referred to in Jer. 46:25, where the word "multitudes" in the Authorized Version is more appropriately rendered "Amon" in the Revised Version. In Nah. 3:8 the expression "populous No" of the Authorized version is rendered in the Revised Version "No-amon." Amon is identified with Ra, the sun-god of Heliopolis.

(4.) Neh. 7:59.

AMON, OR AMEN [SMITH] (the mysterious), an Egyptian divinity, whose name occurs in that of No-amon. (Nahum 3:8) Amen was one of the eight gods of the first order and chief of the triad of Thebes. He was worshipped at that city as Amen-Ra, or "Amen the Sun."

AMEN [ISBE] AMEN - a-men' (in ritual speech and in singing a-men', a'men) ('amen; amen, = "truly," "verily"): Is derived from the reflexive form of a verb meaning "to be firm," or "to prop." It occurs twice as a noun in Isa 65:16, where we have (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American)) "God of truth." This rendering implies the pointing 'omen or 'emun i.e. "truth," or "faithfulness," a reading actually suggested by Cheyne and adopted by others. "Amen" is generally used as an adverb of assent or confirmation--fiat, "so let it be." In Jer 28:6 the prophet endorses with it the words of Hananiah. Amen is employed when an individual or the whole nation confirms a covenant or oath recited in their presence (Nu 5:22; Dt 27:15 ff; Neh 5:13, etc.). It also occurs at the close of a psalm or book of psalms, or of a prayer.

That "Amen" was appended to the doxology in the early church is evident both from Paul and Rev, and here again it took the form of a response by the hearers. The ritual of the installation of the Lamb (Rev 5:6-14) concludes with the Amen of the four beasts, and the four and twenty elders. It is also spoken after "Yea: I come quickly" (Rev 22:20). And that Revelation reflects the practice of the church on earth, and not merely of an ideal, ascended community in heaven, may be concluded from 1 Cor 14:16, whence we gather that the lay brethren were expected to say "Amen" to the address. (See Weizsacker's The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, English translation, II, 289.)

James Millar

AMON [ISBE] AMON - a'-mon ('amon): A name identical with that of the Egyptian local deity of Thebes (No); compare Jer 46:25. The foreign name given to a Hebrew prince is remarkable, as is also the fact that it is one of the two or three royal names of Judah not compounded with the name of Yahweh. See MANASSEH. It seems to reflect the sentiment which his fanatical father sought to make prevail that Yahweh had no longer any more claim to identification with the realm than had other deities.

(1) A king of Judah, son and successor of Manasseh; reigned two years and was assassinated in his own palace by the officials of his household. The story of his reign is told briefly in 2 Ki 21:19-26, and still more briefly, though in identical terms, so far as they go, in 2 Ch 33:21-25. His short reign was merely incidental in the history of Judah; just long enough to reveal the traits and tendencies which directly or indirectly led to his death. It was merely a weaker continuation of the regime of his idolatrous father, though without the fanaticism which gave the father positive character, and without the touch of piety which, if the Chronicler's account is correct, tempered the father's later years.

If the assassination was the initial act of a revolution the latter was immediately suppressed by "the people of the land," who put to death the conspirators and placed Amon's eight-year-old son Josiah on the throne. In the view of the present writer the motive of the affair was probably connected with the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty, which, having survived so long according to prophetic prediction (compare 2 Sam 7:16; Ps 89:36,37), was an essential guarantee of Yahweh's favor. Manasseh's foreign sympathies, however, had loosened the hold of Yahweh on the officials of his court; so that, instead of being the loyal center of devotion to Israel's religious and national idea, the royal household was but a hotbed of worldly ambitions, and all the more for Manasseh's prosperous reign, so long immune from any stroke of Divine judgment. It is natural that, seeing the insignificance of Amon's administration, some ambitious clique, imitating the policy that had frequently succeeded in the Northern Kingdom, should strike for the throne. They had reckoned, however, without estimating the inbred Davidic loyalty of the body of the people. It was a blow at one of their most cherished tenets, committing the nation both politically and religiously to utter uncertainty. That this impulsive act of the people was in the line of the purer religious movement which was ripening in Israel does not prove that the spiritually-minded "remnant" was minded to violence and conspiracy, it merely shows what a stern and sterling fiber of loyalty still existed, seasoned and confirmed by trial below the corrupting cults and fashions of the ruling classes. In the tragedy of Amon's reign, in short, we get a glimpse of the basis of sound principle that lay at the common heart of Israel.

(2) A governor of Samaria (1 Ki 22:26); the one to whom the prophet Micaiah was committed as a prisoner by King Ahab, after the prophet had disputed the predictions of the court prophets and foretold the king's death in battle.

(3) The head of the "children of Solomon's servants" (Neh 7:59) who returned from captivity; reckoned along with the Nethinim, or temple slaves. Called also Ami (Ezr 2:57).

John Franklin Genung

Lucky (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is from COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY VOLUME 2[] - A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Herman L. Hoeh.

THREE MISSING WORDS

Now turn to the book of James. To whom is it addressed? Read it: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting" (first verse).

You probably never noticed that before. This book is not addressed to the Gentiles. It is not addressed exclusively to Judah -- the Jews. It is addressed to all twelve tribes. To the House of Judah and to the House of Israel -- the Lost Ten Tribes.

Have you ever noticed that the letter of James, like the book of Acts, ends abruptly, without the normal salutations? Read it -- James 5:20.

Compare it with Paul's epistles. In the original inspired Greek New Testament everyone of Paul's letters ends with an "Amen." Everyone of the four gospels ends with an "Amen." The book of Revelation ends with an "Amen "

This little word "Amen," of Hebrew derivation, signifies completion. In the Authorized Version (most modern versions are incorrect, and in several instances carelessly leave off the proper ending found in the Greek) every one of the New Testament books ends with an "Amen" except three -- Acts, James and II John. In these three, and these three only, the word "Amen" is not in the inspired original Greek. It is purposely missing. Why?

Each missing "Amen" is a special sign. It indicates God wants us to understand that certain missing knowledge was not to be made known to the world -- until now, when the gospel is being sent around the world as a final witness before the end of this age.

God purposely excluded from the book of Acts the final chapters in the history of the early true Church. If they had been included, the identity and whereabouts of Israel and the true Church would have been revealed! It is part of God's plan that the House of Israel should lose its identity and think itself Gentile.

If the book of James had ended with the ordinary salutation, the nations of Israel would have been disclosed. Paul often ends his letters with names of places and people. See the last verses of Romans, Colossians, Hebrews, for example. This is the very part missing, purposely, from James!

And why was the short letter of III John missing an "Amen"? Let John himself tell us, "I had many things to write: but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee" (verse 13). John reveals, in the letter, a pagan conspiracy. It was a diabolical attempt by Simon Magus and his false apostles to seize the name of Christ, gain control of the true Church, and masquerade as "Christianity." God did not permit John to make known, in plain language, the names of the leaders of that conspiracy, and the city of their operation. That is why John cut his letter short. The missing "Amen" is to tell us to look elsewhere in the Bible for the answer. It is described, if you have eyes to see, in Revelation 17, Acts 8 and many other chapters of the Bible. The time to unmask that conspiracy is now (II Thessalonians 2), just before the return of Christ. (unsigned submission by User:Luckynumbers)


 * Lucky, you said you were going to stop doing this. You are constantly reposting material which is either a) original research or b) irrelevant to the question, and in any case you have it posted before. If you want to have a discussion with another editor about your personal beliefs please do so that their talk page, not this one. This constant reposting is getting very close to vandalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? That is a big laugh. Not one single thing that I posted was original research. I posted data given from different sources. I did not state this was my point of view. I am merely pointing out the facts. If you have a problem with facts, which you obviously do, then do something else. That is not my problem. You have spent a considerable amount of time attacking me without providing a single source or explaination to back up a single thing. As all can tell, I have posted from credible sources. The word omen means the exact same thing as amen in Hebrew, which just shows that the word amen is not from Hebrew at all. I have provided source after source. Claiming that I am posting original research is your method of defense for a weak argument. If your argument wasn't so weak, you would not have to resort to such a tactic. The mere fact that there is a feminine form of the word in Hebrew needs to be mentioned.

If you are going to make the claim that the Jews immediately forgot about the god named amen that was associated with the king, then say so. Otherwise, let the facts tell the story instead of putting your own religious interpretation on them. That is all that I have tried to do. All the scholarly sources show that amen was in use among the Jewish Egyptians and hymns were written to the god/king named amen in Egypt. I can't find a single source that is not tied to a religious group that shows otherwise. Now, if you are suggesting that the Jews that were in Egypt were the source of the word that was adopted by the Egyptians, then I would like to see a little bit of evidence. As far as evidence goes, the word was in use by Jews in Egypt prior to their exodus. That is a fact.

Lucky (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucky: read what I wrote on the 18th March. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aum
Has no one here considered notating the claim from many Hindu and Buddhist teachers in the past hundred or so years, that the words "Aum" and "Amen" are linguistically related? Or are issues in this article already too charged by ideology? Is the claim bunk? And if so, why did it come about? Couldn't an article about a very important word in religious history include a scholarly discussion of this 19-21st-century phemomenon, whether to raise questions or debunk it, based on available evidence? O0drogue0o (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi O0drogue0o. I've seen nothing to indicate that Aum and Amen are related, but feel free to look for good reliable sources on the subject. My understanding is that the two words have different roots, widely separated in space, so are unlikely to be related. But I could be wrong. Feel free to do some research and tell us what you find. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the claim is bunk at all, however it is difficult to find reliable sources to back this up. I have provided plenty of evidence to back up the Egyptian use of the word ... yet it gets censored every time. I don't think these guys are interested in the truth at all. Lucky (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucky, once again, if you actually had good secondary sources your statements would be in the article. As you actually have only your own research, they are not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into the reference that states that "there is no academic support" for this. Could someone provide an exact quote for this? Does the American Heritage Dictionary actually state this or is this being presumed because of the lack of any statement between Om and amen? Does this actually come from the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots? Ian Joyner (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These dictionaries list no etymology like this, and would if there was a viable one. Also nobody has turned up any actual support for these views. Do you have any? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a far stretch to state that these dictionaries would list an etymology if there was one. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots is a very interesting little book, but is only about 150 paperback-sized pages. Of that only about 70 are etymology, hardly an exhaustive list. However, someone has stated, or at least juxtaposed the reference in such a way, that these dictionaries actually say there is no academic evidence for this. What I am asking for is proof that these dictionaries actually say this. Ian Joyner (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I conduct an exhaustive search, do you have any evidence at all that any reliable sources do support this etymology? DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. It is known that their was trade and cultural exchange between the eastern Mediterranean and India. Ideas flowed between the ancient Greeks and Indians, particularly about language. Pottery, which contained grains and other goods, from Harappa and Mohinjo-Daro are also found it that area and that is from an even earlier period. Words are known to be in common. Like Man, which even the Oxford lists as coming from Sanskrit manu, and I believe the Hebrew word is manuth, taken from the Sanskrit, or maybe earlier Indo-European language. Many links with Sanskrit are just left out of the Oxford. Like name, which comes from the dhatu (root) nam or namaha (नमः), but Oxford makes no mention of this. So much etymology is incomplete, being researched, or still to be researched. Obviously the further back you go the harder it gets. To do a word's etymology takes painstaking research, but because the etymology does not exist, does not prove there is no connection. However, the paragraph seems quite in place saying it is conjecture and that a connection is suggested. There is no ultimate truth here, but a link is indeed plausible. It might be academic conjecture, but the statement that there is no academic evidence itself seems unsupported, except by what seems to be a bogus reference. You need to give proof that the American Heritage Dictionary explicitly states that there is no academic support for both no connection to Amun or Om ॐ. Ian Joyner (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything you write above is what we at Wikipedia call original research and is not admissible. The fact that you personally find a link plausible does not allow you to write about it at Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see... I'm not writing about it on Wikipedia. But you are. You are still failing to support this reference you gave saying there is no academic evidence for these links. You can resolve this by providing a more specific reference to which American Heritage Dictionary says this and where it says it because I can't find it. But just because I can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist - maybe your reference is too vague. If you can actually be more explicit it would be better for your argument. So I'm calling on you, but you have failed to back up a simple reference so far. Ian Joyner (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, none of what I write is original research. I got what I said about trade from a Sydney University course I did on ancient India. The comments are further backed up by John Keay in "India: A History". Even Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappa. I did mention the OED did I not? What, it seems, is "original" is the backing reference to the statement that there is no academic evidence. Ian Joyner (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think my point is that while what you wrote above may be sourced, it is not directly related to Amen. Do you have any actual sources that indicate an etymological relation between Aum and Amen?
 * Our trouble here is that we frequently get people who wish to add statements linking Amen to Egyptian or Sanskrit roots entirely for the purpose of pushing their own religious ideas. At one point we just deleted these statements, but then they kept adding them back. So now there is a statement acknowledging the existence of the idea but making it clear that it is a fringe idea (which it is).
 * Do you know of any actual reliable sources connecting Amen with Aum? If so, then fine. If not, then removing these statements is going to cause Wikipedia a huge amount of trouble. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see... I'm not writing about it on Wikipedia. But you are. You are still failing to support this reference you gave saying there is no academic evidence for these links. You can resolve this by providing a more specific reference to which American Heritage Dictionary says this and where it says it because I can't find it. But just because I can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist - maybe your reference is too vague. If you can actually be more explicit it would be better for your argument. So I'm calling on you, but you have failed to back up a simple reference so far. Ian Joyner (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, none of what I write is original research. I got what I said about trade from a Sydney University course I did on ancient India. The comments are further backed up by John Keay in "India: A History". Even Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappa. I did mention the OED did I not? What, it seems, is "original" is the backing reference to the statement that there is no academic evidence. Ian Joyner (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think my point is that while what you wrote above may be sourced, it is not directly related to Amen. Do you have any actual sources that indicate an etymological relation between Aum and Amen?
 * Our trouble here is that we frequently get people who wish to add statements linking Amen to Egyptian or Sanskrit roots entirely for the purpose of pushing their own religious ideas. At one point we just deleted these statements, but then they kept adding them back. So now there is a statement acknowledging the existence of the idea but making it clear that it is a fringe idea (which it is).
 * Do you know of any actual reliable sources connecting Amen with Aum? If so, then fine. If not, then removing these statements is going to cause Wikipedia a huge amount of trouble. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand where you are coming from. There are some nuts out there. Although Galileo, Darwin would have been considered among them, as was JC himself. However, your own reaction seems to be extreme, especially since it reads that you are quoting AHD to say that AHD explicitly says there is no connection. I certainly found AHD Indo-European Roots in the university library and amen is mentioned nowhere. I got access to an electronic copy of AHD at the university (because I can't from here) and it says:

Electronic AHD via Credo Reference

>>>> under Om2

Hinduism & Buddhism The supreme and most sacred syllable, consisting in Sanskrit of the three sounds (a), (u), and (m), representing various fundamental triads and believed to be the spoken essence of the universe. It is uttered as a mantra and in affirmations and blessings.

Amen Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin āmēn, from Greek, from Hebrew ’āmēn, certainly, verily, from ’āman, to be firm.

Used at the end of a prayer or a statement to express assent or approval. <<<<

That does not say anything about the contention that there is no academic support, although it could be read to the contrary to suggest similarity in sound and meaning, but either way I agree would fit the definition of original research. Thus you (or someone) have been drawn in by these people to contravening what WP says: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research". AHD might be a reliable source (although tertiary), but seems it has been used in an unreliable way.

I think the article reads well apart from that little bit, which immediately struck me as an overdone statement.

Dharam Vir Singh an MA of English Literature says in his book "Hinduism: An Introduction" that Aum... " is used at the beginning of meditation, at the beginning and at the end of a prayer". Even though there is a striking similarity in sound, usage, and meaning there is still a gap there that can't be filled in (at least by me at the moment). The connection might be as simple as in any language the primitive sound "hmmm" signals approval which coincidentally came from Afro-Asiatic roots (Hebrew), or Indo-European roots (Sanskrit). The Middle East is at the crossroads between the two lines. So as it stands, neither proven, nor disproven. Thus your position that there is no link can also not be verified and there is evidence to the contrary that links exist.

Your earlier post also suggests that you know of no physical link between India and the middle east ("widely separated in space"), but there are very clear links that are still being researched. Thus the premise of your position is wrong. Etymology is also very incomplete, particularly the published etymologies such as AHD.

Thus it seems the article correctly guards the arguments with "some adherents", etc, but the last sentence is unguarded and unencyclopaedic and the reference cannot, it seems, be verified, thus in itself fits the profile of original research. Where a question is unresolved, it should be left open, flagged as such by guard clauses and not closed off with such a statement. Ian Joyner (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the dictionary references do not explicitly make the statement. Dictionaries are rarelyHowever the absence of any mentions in dictionaries, coupled with the total absence of any editor finding academic support (yes, several have looked with great enthusiasm, and your best effort seems to be an MA in English who says he can't find a connection) indicates the truth of the statement we make. It is certainly not 'original research'. I believe that this is a case where the necessity of making what is clearly a correct statement overrides the necessity of find a reference that proves a negative. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Clearly a correct statement", you see your biases are showing as much as those who are stating the hypothesis is true. I make it clear Mr Singh says nothing about the connection positive or negative, but you quickly jump in and say Mr Singh says that he "can't find a connection", rather he didn't say he can or can't find a connection - quite a different thing. My problem is that there is a question of connectivity here and Wikipedia has editorialised that the answer is no. As Donald Rumsfeld would say "It's a known unknown", but not one that is altogether without evidence. I'm not suggesting that anything I have written is put into Wikipedia, but the question is clearly not answered and Wikipedia according to the editorial guidelines should thus not make a statement on it. That's what makes it a very interesting and quite tantalizing question! I have included the references not to prove this question, but to prove the case that one should keep an open mind on the subject, and Wikipedia should also be left open, futureproof the system so to speak. Ian Joyner (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that "Even though there is a striking similarity in sound, usage, and meaning there is still a gap there that can't be filled in" would indicate that the author doesn't know of any connection. We have summarized the situation correctly by saying that "there is no academic support" for the etymology. We don't say the etymology is wrong, and if someone produces support for it, we will be happy to change the article. (And I don't recommend Donald Rumsfeld as a model of clarity and accuracy.) DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

70CE
I removed statements that "Amen is not found in Hebrew documents before 70CE" since a) it wasn't sourced and b) all of the Hebrew Bible was written before 70CE. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Uses of Amem
I added this: It also appears in doxologies in the Pss (41:14; 72:19; 89:53; 106:48). This liturgical form from Judaism. (Psalm 41:13; 72:19; 89:52), to confirm the words and invoke the fulfillment of them.eastonsbibledictionary.com, AmenIn Isaiah 65:16, the authorized version has "the God of truth," ("the God of Amen," in Hebrew. Jesus often used Amen to put emphasis to his own words (translated: "verily"). In John's Gospel, it is repeated, "Verily, verily." Amen is also used in oath (Numbers 5:22; Deuteronomy 27:15-26; Nehemiah 5:13; 8:6; 1 Chronicles 16:36). "Amen" is further found at the end of the prayer of primitive churches (1 Corinthians 14:16).eastonsbibledictionary.com, Amen--Florentino floro (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology again
To User:64.56.128.11

Your edit to Amen is not appropriate because no references are given to back up what you write. Tom Harpur is not an etymologist, and his works are not considered academic in the field. It is not clear that his writings explicitly support the derivation of Amen; if you are sure that they do, please give a page number where he make the statement. There are no references to back up the claim of "increasing academic support".

Please do not make this edit again without consulting other editors. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Tom Harpur is not a etymologist. But he is not saying the word Amen was transferred between the Egyptian and Hebrew languages. He states that Christianity was an Egyptian sect and thus the use of the word Amen has a direct relation to the Egyptian language because the first Christians were Egyptians. No etymology needed.

I suppose this is technically a different theory then the one I put it under. Do you think it would be ok to make a "NEW" entry and explain Harpur's Theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.128.11 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Lucky. Please can you tell us exactly on what page of his book Harpur states that Amen derives from the Egyptian? If he doesn't say that then he is not relevant to this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't, but if the first Christians were Egyptians -as he does claim- isn't the connection of the word "Amen" from Egyptian to Christian obvious? Or do think this theory requires a whole new article? At the very least it is related as to why Christians use Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.128.11 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia we are an encyclopedia; encyclopedias don't do their own research into things, they report on the research others have done. If you have worked out for yourself that because of something Tom Harpur writes  therefore something else must be true - even if you think it is obvious - then you are not allowed to put it in Wikipedia. It's called Original research and that link explains why it is not allowed. Sorry, but that's the way it is. And no, it won't help to start a new article. If it's not allowed in this article it's not allowed in any article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose thats true. But, I will start my own article on the book "The Pagan Christ" and summarize his theory that the first Christians were Egyptians. I will also explain and provide links to the CBC documentary "The Pagan Christ". I will not mention the word Amen. Or do you object to that to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.8.164 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no objection. I'm surprised there isn't such an article already. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.128.11 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth - that was not me that you have been referring to as Lucky. I did not make that post and once again you are more than likely trying to defend a theory that is not based on truth. The earliest copies of the bible are from Egypt and were in Coptic. Hebrew is derived directly from the Egyptian. Please provide the source texts or photos of the oldest known place that Amen is written in Hebrew. I bet you can't find it. All the facts prove that Egypt is where the earliest Christian texts are from. Amen was a term borrowed by the Christians from Egyptian Jews.

Ancient Semitic Snake Spells Deciphered in Egyptian Pyramid

Oldest of Bibles in Coptic Manuscript

Alphabet Originated Centuries Earlier Than Previously Thought

The Codes Sinaiticus was written in Egypt. It is the oldest bible ever discovered. Please explain to me why the Egyptian use of the word Amen should be disregarded if the oldest bible was written in Egypt. The Egyptian use of the word is much more significant than any other use of the word because it proves that Christians don't understand what they are saying when they use the word. Anyway, good luck defending a lie.

Lucky (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read your own sources, Luckynumbers. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're just jerking us around now, Lucky, or you are dumber than you look. The Codex Sinaiticus was written in the 4th Century AD. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the misleading edits put in today. The etymology section sufficiently mentions the dubious "Amun-Amen" theory.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To say that there is no academic support for the view that Amen was derived from Egypt is just flat out false. Here is one academic source that proves the statement wrong. In the book Eden in Egypt: A Translation Of The Book Of Genesis Out Of The Original Egyptian Text this very view is presented. The book Tut-Ankh-Amen: The Living Image of the Lord also expresses this point of view. To say that there is NO academic support is false. You are simply trying to push your own views by trying to discredit others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.168.14 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Book" is not the same as "academic", and that book is far from being a reputable source, let alone an academic source. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the text is not original in Eqyptian -- it is original in Hebrew.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

'''You people really need to fix this page up. The word Amen meant God or "black matter" in africa many thousands of years before the hebrew language existed (contrary to the "fact" on the article page).''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.248.186 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you find a reliable source that says this, and show that it's where the hebrew word came from, then it can get added to the article. Writing something in bold doesn't make the argument more convincing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Halachic Rules
Recently this article was expanded significantly to include many Halachic details regarding the Jewish liturgical usage of Amen. These edits are relatively well written, but I wonder if we really need all the halachic minutae here. In my opinion, these additions are a little bit too detailed and result in a somewhat muddled article.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, that's the essence of what Amen is. It originates in in Jewish liturgy and is borrowed by Christian and Islamic liturgy.  It is no different than the mikvah which originates in Judaism and was borrowed by Christians for baptism -- it's just that they don't use the term.  If they would use the term, would you suggest that details of Jewish law not be included in the article because they "muddle" the article?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I merely think that there are too many details and examples given which effectively muddle the article. Your additions were well written, and, well organized.  However, I think the Halachic section could be shortened - albeit some of the details would have to be given up.  For example wouldn't it be enough to mention that generally one does not answer "amen" to one's own blessing.  Rather than the entire matter discussed in detail with specific examples given?  The reason I think it should shortened is because the flow of the article is interrupted by the halachic detail given.  Whereas before the article contained some halachic information, the main thrust was the historic origin and comparative usage of the term.  Now, a very large portion (perhaps disprortionately large?) of the article is bogged down with nearly all the halachot of reciting or answering amen.  Ultimately, I am not overly concerned - notice that I haven't made any edits to this section.  Perhaps one day (if there is an interest) I will try to edit the section to some degree.  But I have no such plans now.  I hope this clarifies what I meant.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the whole section on the customs for the use of Amen in Jewish liturgy (which now occupies more than half the article) is broken out into its own article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro, the section could be shortened to something like its length before the details were added last September; and those details could be broken out into another article or a WikiHow manual.Hanina (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"El melekh ne’eman"
1st off sorry if I'm submitting a suggestion for this article incorrectly, quite new to this. The article mentions "El melekh ne’eman" as being said (silently) directly after the "Shma" (Shema?). However, in every service (including Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox) that I've ever been to, I've always heard others say/myself said "Baruch shem kavod malchuto l'olam va'ed." Can anyone clarify whether I am confused/have been doing it wrong my entire life, or if instead the writer who put that in was mistaken? Help?....Please? 75.49.9.225 (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)32Lex22
 * Although this is really beyond the subject of this article, I can answer your question in brief. The reciting of "El Melekh Ne'eman" immediately before the Shema, is only said by an individual reciting the Shema without a Minyan (quorum).  Thus when reciting the Shema in synagogue services one would not say "El Melekh Ne'eman."  The reason given for an individual's recitation of this phrase is related to the number of words recited in the Shema. The number of words in the Shema is 245.  In Synagogue services the concluding phrase "Adonai Elohechem Emet" is repeated by the Chazan, thus in Synagogue services the number of words of the Shema equals 248.  The Rabbis assign significance to the number 248 (either as the number of bones in the human body, or according to most counts, the number of positive commandments enumerated in the Torah.) Therefore individuals add the phrase "El Melekh Ne'eman" before the shema to make up for the three words missing (since they will not hear chazan's repetition.)  It should be noted that not all communities have this custom (i.e. Frankfurt A/M and others).  It should also be noted that this explanation, although popular, is probably a back formation - i.e. it is an explanation given to explain the prevailing custom, and may not be the origin of the custom.  I hope that this long explanation helps.  For the context of this article - the Talmud gives homiletical significance to the phrase because accrostically it spells "Amen". Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My point/question was whether "El melech ne'eman really was ever said after the Shema. You yourself just said it is said before it, when there is no minyan. Therefore my question was if the article was accurate in stating "El melech ne'eman" was ever stated after the reciting of the Shema. &quot;Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?&quot; (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)32Lex22
 * I don't see where it says that in the article. In any event, It is not said "after" the shema.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

El melech ne'eman means G-d is a faithful King. This just further goes to show that the word is a reference to a King, god, Master, LORD, etc. The word amen means "so be it", "verily" or "truly" only to those who do not understand that they are invoking the name of a man/god/king. The Hebrew word for amen is an interjection ... similar to saying "JESUS CHRIST" when you slam your finger in a door. So be it, verily and truly are not interjections. "Verily" and "truly" are adverbs and reference to those should be removed from this article because this is about the interjection. 

Jesus Christ was called the Amen in revelations and the original use of the word was a reference to a God / King. The God / King just so happened to be Amen of Egypt.

I am interested in seeing the oldest surviving Hebrew inscription with the word Amen on it. I would love to see the original source for reference. Not a dictionary or encyclopedia that does not source their information. I want to see the original inscriptions in whatever language they are claiming their script to be in. Amen was used in Egypt / Nubia as an interjection when invoking the name of their god. Amen.

EL MELEKH NE'EMAN (Heb. אֵל מֶלֶךְ נֶאֱמָן; "God, faithful King"), an affirmation of faith pronounced before the recital of the *Shema. The rabbis interpreted the word *Amen as being composed of the initial letters of El Melekh Ne'eman (Shab. 119b). The phrase, however, is pronounced only in private prayer and not at public services where an interposition (even Amen) between Shema and the preceding benediction is omitted (according to some opinions) as an unlawful "interruption." A midrashic interpretation (Tanḥ, B., Lev. 74ff.) derives the custom of reciting El Melekh Ne'eman from the fact that the Shema consists of 245 words, and the phrase El Melekh Ne'eman brings the number up to 248, corresponding to that of the human limbs (cf. Ps. 35:10 "All my bones shall say: Lord, who is like unto Thee"). At public synagogue services where the ḥazzan repeats the last three words of the Shema aloud, the number of the words comes to 248 and the recital of El Melekh Ne'eman is therefore omitted (see Sh. Ar., OḤ 61:3).

The Hebrew people used the word to refer to Amon, King of Judah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.168.14 (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop repeating these arguments. Your stating them over and over again does not make them true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article or information about the origin of the word "Amen" is totally in correct. The word is traced back as far as the time of "Land of Osiris." This is where to word has come from and been redefined over thousands of years. It does not mean what everyone thinks it means. This is the very reason why people are lost.

Patrick D. Powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.229.233 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is valued. However it is very much a minority view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's purpose is to report the current state of human knowledge, and this article reflects that knowledge. Wikipedia is not a tool for persuading or converting people to another viewpoint. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also not a place to censor content as to bias it toward any ideology.--Anthonzi (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish" pronunciations
Couldn't tell if those were supposed to be English pronunciations or not, or whether it was the IPA or respellings which were more accurate, so s.o. might want to double check. kwami (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate citations
Half the citiations on this page were to religious/non-scholarly websites repeating the same informations found on this page, or in the remaining scholarly citations. They included eastonsbibledictionary.com, jewishencyclopedia.com, theosophy-nw.org, assemblyoftrueisrael.com, iahushua.com, blueletterbible.org, etymonline.com, and acrednamebible.com.68.148.123.76 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your work on the references in Wikipedia. Citations of religious publications is perfectly allowable when the subject in question is religious. Eastons and the Jewish Encyclopedia are highly respectable works within their fields. The theosophy references are used to show what is believed by theosophists, and hence also acceptable. However, if you find any other references you believe not to be reliable then please feel free to remove them, or ask someone for clarification. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)