Cliven Bundy booked into the Multnomah County, OR jail at 10:54 p.m.

[happyslug]

68. Most Scholars reject that derivative.

First you must understand that Ancient Egyptian, Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew are all closely related languages, closer to each other then Italian, Spanish and French are to each other. Thus a lot of sentence structure and words are very similar in each language, with many difference more like dialects then actual different words.

Aramaic was used in parts of the New Testament for Aramaic was the language in popular usage in Palestine before the Arab Conquest, but after the Arab Conquest Arabic became the language not only of Arabia, but the Near East and Egypt (Thus was more a change in writing then any real change in language for the languages are all that close).

Given that background the Jewish word "Amen" is best translated as "So be it". It effect when you say "Amen" you are saying "The end" to the pray.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen

Ammon, as used by ancient Egyptians meant "The Hidden one" and was the name of the Chief God of Ancient Egypt:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01430d.htm

Thus the words are similar, but appear to be derived from different Semitic words, thus giving some people the idea that Amen is derived from Ammon. Scholars who have looked at both words just can NOT make such a connection for both appear to be words that even in ancient times meant different things.

One source of this confusion is transliteration, the translation of one language to another when the two languages use different alphabets. For example when a Slavic name ending with the meaning of "of" (as in From, of New York City, meaning someone from the City of New York) is translated into English from Russian, it goes from the Cyclic Alphabet to the Latin Alphabet and comes out with a "sky" at the end of the name.

On the other hand the same name in Polish, Polish uses the Latin Alphabet, are translated unchanged and thus end in the "ski". Is there any real difference it that ending of a name? No both mean "of" (like the German "von" means "of" but the Slavs put it at the end of the name instead of before the name) but when translated into English the Russian end in y the Polish ends in i. The reason for this is Polish uses the Latin Alphabet and thus no need to translate each letter of a name, while the Russians use the Cyclic alphabet and thus when translated into English you not only have to translate the word, but also each letter for the Russians use a different alphabet.

http://www.polishroots.org/Research/SurnameSearch/Surnamesendings/tabid/118/Default.aspx

In the case of Semitic names, Hebrew uses a phonetic alphabet, the Ancient Egyptians used hieroglyphics. This leads to same words used on both languages being translated into English differently and at other times as the same word.

Then you have the problems of words pronounced the same but derived from different sources, for example in English, Wood and Would, there, they and their, weather and whether, Well and While. The words are pronounced the same but have completely different meanings (and if you ever read US Civil War letters home, you realized how recent most words have assumed their present spelling, Sir Samuel Johnson, the author of the first English Dictionary made the comment "That it was a sign of a lack of Education to be only able to spell a word one way" and that was the rule while into the days of Free Public Education (but since the Civil War how to spell words have become more rigid).

You also have the problem of one word being used for two purposes in other languages. The Classic example is "Of". In English "of" can mean by or from. Thus Karl Marx's famous comment about "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", did he mean rule BY the Proletariat or rule OVER the Proletariat? you can make both argument (and it appears that is what Marx wanted, for he wrote in English, in many ways Marx wanted BOTH, not only over but also by the proletariat). "Of" can mean by, from or over in English. Same word, three different meaning,

Thus to say Amen came from the Egyptian god Ammon is assuming that the words are the same, when there is good evidence that the words are not (more like "Wood" and "would" not "of&quot . Both words in ancient times were used in different context, Amen as an ending (So be it), Ammon as a proper name (The Hidden One) which indicate even in ancient times they meant different things (more"Wood" and "would" as oppose to "of&quot . That is what most scholars view these two words today. You have some you say they are the same word, but the support for that position is poor and as such NOT the opinion of most scholars.