I from what you seem you be explaining is how two words look simular on paper but have different history.
It happens all the time. That is how so many crackpot theories of "Sumerian being related to Greek" or "Greek being related to Tahitian" or "English being related to Hebrew" get proposed -- you can randomly take any two languages that have nothing to do with each other and find words that "look similar on paper" but have totally different histories when you look at them in detail.
You also seems to be defending the watchtowers stance. Which I am sure they are happy about.
That's ridiculous. I was simply correcting an erroneous claim you made. Would it "defend" the Watchtower to insist that the borough of Brooklyn really does exist, because that would support the "Watchtower's stance" that it is based there? Not everything it says is false, you know. The Insight book, for instance, mixes the Watchtower's own sectarian views with information derived from scholarly sources. Tell me, exactly which "stance" would I be "defending" by stating the facts on the matter?
I can't see what you mean "Deriving the word from a totally different Egyptian name for the sun god explains nothing." I can't see what you explained that explained more.
Then you did not understand what I wrote. I explained that (1) the words were not even that similar phonetically, (2) the Hebrew and Canaanite word 'adonay was not even a divine name (as was Aten), but a word that was frequently used to refer to human beings (that's a BIG problem for your hypothesis), (3) the Hebrew-Canaanite word is much older than you would expect, being used 500 years before Akhenaten cast Aten into the role of a "monotheistic" deity (that is a FATAL problem for your hypothesis), (4) the same word was loaned into the Hurrian language, which is hard to believe if the word was Egyptian in origin, (4) the older meaning of the Canaanite word was not "sun" or "sun-disk" (which is what the Aten was) but "father".
Your explanation accounts for none of these facts, aside from a superficial resemblance between the words. You would have to explain why the Hebrew and Canaanite form of the word is not something like yadi, 'adni, and so forth. You would have to explain how the name to the one monotheistic God suddenly got applied mainly to people, only to then only later reemerge as an exclusive title of the one monotheistic God of the Hebrew religion. You would have to explain how it was borrowed with no hint of its solar meaning that it had all throughout Egypt but instead meant "father," such as human fathers. The meanings are totally different. And you would have to explain how the word was used in Canaan and Upper Mesopotamia (by the Mari, and then later by the Hurrians) CENTURIES before the name of the Aten referred to a quasi-monotheistic god. These facts makes your hypothesis highly improbable.
Now the accepted etymology of the word as I explain in my last post neatly accounts for all these facts. The original etymon was Sumerian AD "father" which was used in the third millenium BC and it was loaned into Amorite, the language of Mari, which added the sufformative ending -n. The Amorite form, used in Upper Mesopotamia c. 1700 BC, was also borrowed into the Hurrian language as 'attani. In all these early forms, the word meant "father" and secondarily "lord". The Amorites also colonized Canaan and thus naturally brought the word 'adn and the original form 'ad "father". Thus the pre-Israelite Canaanite texts from Ugarit use both 'ad and 'adn, the former exclusively meaning "father" and the latter meaning both "father (as a title)" and "lord". It is only now at this time that Akhenaten arose in Egypt with his exclusive worship of the Sun-Disk, or the Aten. Later, in the early first millenium BC, the term 'adn was used in Hebrew, no longer meaning "father" but exclusively as "lord" and frequently referring to people. When 'ad(w)ny was used to refer to Yahweh, it was as an epithet and not as a name. Then, many CENTURIES later, especially after the Jewish exile that ended in 535 BC, the later term 'adwny was used in place of the divine name Yahweh. Only now, practically a THOUSAND years after Akhenaten, could the use of the term be superficially compared to Aten as it was briefly used by Akhenaten so long ago. But even such a simple-minded comparison ignores the fact that Ate(n) didn't even sound like 'ad(w)n -- pronounced with a long /o/ with or without the mater lectionis in its written representation (cf. the Phoenician god Adonis, which has the long /o/ (omega) in its Greek transliteration), and with a non-syllabic /n/ that either did not exist in the Egyptian form or was pronounced syllabically.
To me it is hard for me to change my view because of lingustics when the linguistics don't directly conflict.
There is a direct conflict! The Hebrew/Semitic word 'adon was used centuries before Akhenaten among people (such as the Amorites of Mari) who had nothing to do with the Eygptians. The meaning of the word had nothing in common with that of Aten. So the only resemblance is that between the spelling of Aten (which wasn't pronounced quite like Aten) and 'adon in English.
Your anachronisitic "folk etymology" of the Hebrew word has nothing to do with the actual history of the word.
