StopSylviaBrowne - Novus Spiritus: An Aramaic Prayer? [Archive]

PastBrowneFan

19th August 2007, 01:47 PM

Robert,

Yet another great article.

I'll put myself out on the chopping block here and admit that, during the 10 years I previously followed SB and was associated with NS, I had questioned to myself about that line in the prayers, and at first thougt I really thought that SB put that in about herself, but I went along still following.

I never really researched those words until a few weeks ago, and discovered that they were not what was presented to those is NS, and to the countless victims buying SB books.

I agree with others that "the Office" of NS will probably try to spin this, but if SB, and her "church" NS, will lie in print, lie in prayers, and propogate that lie as "Francine gave the info to Sylvia", then I look forward to how they will try to spin this.

Yet another nail in the coffin for those countless "believers" out there who have been questioning, but not sure what to believe. Surely we will see more past browne fans come out of this article, and hopefully they will have the courage and sense of rightness to come forward and talk out about the con game that SB and NS are playing.

Great work yet again.

SeekingTruth

19th August 2007, 01:49 PM

No leave it--it's just like the silly church sign: "What's missing? CH_RCH"

:)

I agree...and thanks to Robert's website and all the wonderful people here who are helping him with research, one can only hope that a lot more "u"'s ( "you's") will be missing from their control and their bank account.

ST

Boo

19th August 2007, 01:55 PM

It's like watching a house of cards coming down.

Boo

Magic 9-Ball

19th August 2007, 02:00 PM

Wow. More BS from SB. Thanks again, Robert.

How come I'm not surprised by the conclusions you made when delving into specifics. I'm sure you could find dozens of lies and half truths (unless you already have?).

If Sylvia and NS are responding to SSB, then good. I would think that shows you're having some effect. Keep it up!

Miss Whiplash

19th August 2007, 02:06 PM

Her prayer reminds me a lot of the 60's fortune telling game Ka-bal-a. (http://www.museumoftalkingboards.com/katoon1.html) To play, you said the magic words: "Hax, pax, surax, hola, nola, nostrola." Usually though, the toy fell apart by the time you finished. Looks like the same is happening to Sylvie! :D

grayman

19th August 2007, 02:15 PM

Robert, you need to see if those words are Mayan or Aztec. Maybe Francine slipped into the old tongue while helping SB with this one. ;)

Goshawk

19th August 2007, 02:19 PM

Wow. I heard the sound of holy thunder while I was reading that article. Somewhere God is happy that a blow was struck for irrefutable Cosmic Truthiness.

Kelly

19th August 2007, 02:25 PM

Nice article!

My first thought was that if it's what they're claiming, why would it be transliterated as a list of words separated by commas?

This is what I thought, too. A good question for the language expert would be: Are there any languages that feature commas even though the English version is a fluid sentence rather than a series of words?

Great work as always, Robert.

ETA: Even though the article is powerful as it stands, I think it could move up a notch if we had a conformation that none of the languages in question (or ever referenced by Sylvia) do NOT feature words in a string like this, that in English are a fluid sentence. That leaves her and her followers with no wiggle room for excuses.

Minarvia

19th August 2007, 02:32 PM

Hah! What a load of hooey on her part. I also wondered why she put commas in there, too. That makes no sense...but neither does all her other bull.
This article was very interesting. I truly cannot wait to see exactly how NS will deal with it. But perhaps they won't as so far their responses (ie the Linda Rossi Anderson-Cooper disaster, Sylvia supposedly providing proof of her Masters, and her ridiculous threats to get you to shut your site down) have been a colossal failure.

RSLancastr

19th August 2007, 02:33 PM

Nice article!Thanks, Joe!

My first thought was that if it's what they're claiming, why would it be transliterated as a list of words separated by commas?Yes, the same occurred to me. It's like it's a B-Movie version of a magic incantation, like the one Vampire mentions....

Yet another great article.Thanks, PBF!

I'll put myself out on the chopping block here and admit that, during the 10 years I previously followed SB and was associated with NS, I had questioned to myself about that line in the prayers, and at first thougt I really thought that SB put that in about herself, but I went along still following.The first time I read the (supposed) translation, my initial thought is "She has these people praying to her - she's the 'Queen'!"

I almost added that to the article, but decided against it.

I agree with others that "the Office" of NS will probably try to spin this, but if SB, and her "church" NS, will lie in print, lie in prayers, and propogate that lie as "Francine gave the info to Sylvia", then I look forward to how they will try to spin this.It shuold be interesting.

It's like watching a house of cards coming down.In slow motion!

Wow. More BS from SB. Thanks again, Robert.Thanks, M9B!

I'm sure you could find dozens of lies and half truths (unless you already have?). The problem isn't finding them. It's finding significant enough ones (or a group of smaller ones) which could make up an article.

To play, you said the magic words: "Hax, pax, surax, hola, nola, nostrola." Usually though, the toy fell apart by the time you finished. Looks like the same is happening to Sylvie! :DDid you inadvertently summon any demons playing this game? :D

Robert, you need to see if those words are Mayan or Aztec. Maybe Francine slipped into the old tongue while helping SB with this one. ;)Grayman, I will ask you to never again use the words "slipped," "tongue" and "SB" in the same sentence. :(

Wow. I heard the sound of holy thunder while I was reading that article. Somewhere God is happy that a blow was struck for irrefutable Cosmic Truthiness.Thanks! I think... :)

Brown

19th August 2007, 02:48 PM

A few points.

Shem is a prominent Biblical name. Shem was a son of Noah:

Genesis 5:32: And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The name "Shem" is the root of the word "Semites," supposedly the decendents of Shem. Among those descendants is Jesus of Nazareth:

Luke 3:35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber [Eber], which was the son of Sala [Salah],
Luke 3:36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem [Shem], which was the son of Noe [Noah], which was the son of Lamech...

Curiously, Luke (3:35) lists Cainan as a son of Arphaxad, and Cainan as the father of Sala [Salah]. According to Luke, Salah is the grandson of Arphaxad. Genesis (10:22, 24) tells a different story, with Salah being the son of Arphaxad, not his grandson.

Why is this important? Because Luke lists a curious interloper, Cainan, which may be a reference to Canaan. Canaan has an usual history. Canaan was (according to Genesis 9:18) the son of Shem's brother, Ham. And Canaan was cursed because of something his father did; in particular, Ham stumbled upon Noah, drunk out of his gourd, lying naked in a tent. Seeing his father's naughty bits caused Noah to utter a curse against Canaan, making Canaan the victim of arguably the worst curse in the history of the world:

Gen. 9:21: And he [Noah] drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen. 9:22: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren [Shem and Japheth] without.
Gen. 9:23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
Gen. 9:24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen. 9:25: And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen. 9:26: And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen. 9:27: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
These verses were used for centuries to justify the slavery of dark-skinned peoples, who were supposedly Hamites.

Thus, Shem was the recipient of a rather odd blessing. Shem was "blessed" in the sense that he was entitled to enslave the descendants of his brother.

The descendents of Shem, the Semites, went on to produce the "chosen people." To this day, those perceived as hating or opposed to Jews are called "anti-semitic."

To sum up: Shem of the Bible has nothing to do with any queen or any entity "on high" or any person who is "sacred" or any who come thereunto. But Shem is associated with blessings of a most peculiar sort: the blessing pertain to tribal favoritism by the Almighty, and to human slavery.

RSLancastr

19th August 2007, 02:50 PM

This is what I thought, too. A good question for the language expert would be: Are there any languages that feature commas even though the English version is a fluid sentence rather than a series of words?I think that written Aramaic has no punctuation - not even spaces (this is certainly true of written Hebrew, which is written using the Aramaic alphabet).

But that would not mean that a translation of it would not.

Kelly

19th August 2007, 03:00 PM

I think that written Aramaic has no punctuation - not even spaces (this is certainly true of written Hebrew, which is written using the Aramaic alphabet).

But that would not mean that a translation of it would not.

That would be another good point to add then, don't you think?

Sheesh, if SB is going to fake other languages, she could at least check some basics out first! :boggled:

Of course, as you've said many times, she figures that no one is going to question her. :(

DJM

19th August 2007, 03:32 PM

Hmmmm Hebrew does have spaces between words.. I would have gone crazy by now if it wasn't the case. :drool:

Arem- Aram could be transleted as The High in Hebrew. Arem is said when you ask someone to raise or lift things. Like "Arem et akise": Raise the chair. Could be coincidence though, and not what Sylvia meant.

As it was said, Shem is a name and also Noha's son.

The full transaltion Sylvia gives still doesn't make any sense, at least not in Hebrew.

Kilgore Trout

19th August 2007, 03:42 PM

The words are out of order, but that's to be expected with a a translation as complex as this.

Sacravalian, sacra- holy, -valian->valiant/to be of worth, Blessed Queen. The Blessed Queen is worthy of being. Who else would be of worth, but a queen? This requires a bit more of a leap, of course, but even the Ph.D. didn't know what it meant.

Arem, he raised -> on high. That's an easy one. Something raised is high.

"Sacred to us all" is implied by the 'blessed queen'. Of course the Blessed Queen is sacred to us all, or the Queen wouldn't be Blessed.

Ahad, one -> who. Just a pronoun. Unless "ahad" means one like the number one. In which case it's like "I'm number one!"

Sedal sounds a lot like "sedan" and, naturally, a sedan brings you places and allows you to come to a place. If 'sedal' is pronounced differently, however, then it's a totally different difference.

Shem, name -> her. As part of 'Her house' it's like saying "Phil's house" as "Phil" is someone's name.

Beth, house. House is just accidentally missing from Sylvia's translation. The idea is like coming to the house of the Lord (Queen).

So we have "Blessed Queen on high, sacred to us all who come to Her house."

It's quite obvious really, when you look at it.

RSLancastr

19th August 2007, 03:56 PM

The sad thing is, Kilgore, that some will read that and think it perfectly reasonable.

DJM

19th August 2007, 04:01 PM

Oh, now I see you already translated the Arem part on your site.. I guess I missed that.

Soapy Sam

19th August 2007, 04:07 PM

I believe!
Kilgore is Kween!

Another nail in the coffin , Bob. Lid's getting tight! :)

Brown

19th August 2007, 04:16 PM

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahad), "Ahad" is an Arabic word meaning "Single" or "One," and refers to God.

The Arabs, of course, are deemed to be Semites, as are the Jews. It is therefore an odd thing when a person making a pro-Arab statement is accused of being "anti-semitic."

The more scientific understanding of "semite" pertains to peoples united by a common language, or a family of languages. This is, of course, at odds with the Biblical understanding of languages. From Genesis chapter 11:And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

"AHAD" is also supposedly an acronym for "American Hindus Against Defamation."

JoeTheJuggler

19th August 2007, 04:43 PM

Re: the commas:
I think that written Aramaic has no punctuation - not even spaces (this is certainly true of written Hebrew, which is written using the Aramaic alphabet).

But that would not mean that a translation of it would not.

And that wouldn't matter anyway. Even if there were punctuation marks of some sort in the original language and writing system, once you transliterate it into the Roman alphabet, it would make no sense to have commas between every word.

When you transliterate, you're just making a phonetic representation of the original. For instance, in classical Greek, there was no letter corresponding to our /h/ sound. So a word that started with a vowel had either a rough breathing mark (with the /h/ sound) or smooth breathing mark. When you transliterate the work eureka into the Roman alphabet, there's no need to include a comma or apostrophe or anything in place of the smooth breathing mark.

Wowbagger

19th August 2007, 04:46 PM

pspaddict

19th August 2007, 05:04 PM

Robert, every time I read one of your articles with such punch and obviously well researched data to attack that charlatan I can't help but get a good laugh. You, sir, are a master. I really can't put off not sending a donation any longer; you are just too good. Bravo!

Gord_in_Toronto

19th August 2007, 09:35 PM

When I check out the articles referenced in these posts, I usually get mad or sad. Thanks for one that gives a laugh. :cool:

Slimething

19th August 2007, 09:56 PM

Before I read the good professor's translation, I thought all the words were going to turn out to be some permutation of "cash" or "money". I'm shocked but grateful to you for the education! ;)

Locknar

19th August 2007, 10:11 PM

RSL - You should consider writing to the NS folks and asking what this phrase means; seems an innocent question to ask them.

Clearly, while your research has shown this chant is not as NS/SB claim, they could offer some explanation.

Gord_in_Toronto

19th August 2007, 10:16 PM

Locknar

19th August 2007, 10:19 PM

My Dad always used to claim that "O wata assi am," was the national anthem of Siam.

*lol*

Not that I think they would reply, but if would be a great ending to RSLs article if they did

JoeTheJuggler

19th August 2007, 11:41 PM

pspaddict

20th August 2007, 12:46 AM

I'm fairly certain they've read the article by now. Robert's become a force to be reckoned with.

All the same, Locknar has a good point. In newspapers journalists do bother to ask for a comment on the subject they're writing about, just so they can say they tried to get both sides. Though most of the time a journalist is forced to write 'blankxblank was not available for comment."

RSLancastr

20th August 2007, 01:05 AM

Hmmmm Hebrew does have spaces between words.. I would have gone crazy by now if it wasn't the case. :drool:Not modern Hebrew, but wasn't ancient Hebrew written with no spaces?

Another nail in the coffin , Bob. Lid's getting tight! :)Thanks, Sam!

I have written some nonsense "prayers" for the cult in my film project, and this news just makes my fiction feel like a little less of an exaggeration.Some things are beyond satire, Wow...

I really can't put off not sending a donation any longer; you are just too good. Bravo!Thanks, pspa!

When I check out the articles referenced in these posts, I usually get mad or sad. Thanks for one that gives a laugh. :cool::D

Before I read the good professor's translation, I thought all the words were going to turn out to be some permutation of "cash" or "money". I'm shocked but grateful to you for the education! ;)You learn something new every day at SSB!

RSL - You should consider writing to the NS folks and asking what this phrase means; seems an innocent question to ask them.I called them four times last week. Actually eight times: four each at the Campbell and Seattle offices. I always got the voice mail. In the past, I had no problem reaching an actual person. Perhaps they were all in Vegas.

Anyway, I tried to reach them for comment, but no luck. And I left the door open for a response in the article.

My Dad always used to claim that "O wata assi am," was the national anthem of Siam.I learned it as "Owa, Tagu, Siam!!" :D

Not that I think they would reply, but if would be a great ending to RSLs article if they didThey may have called me back had I left voice mail, but I did not. We'll see what happens this week.

PastBrowneFan

21st August 2007, 07:41 PM

I know it's only been a couple of days, but have you received any responses from anyone on this damning article Robert?

RSLancastr

21st August 2007, 09:49 PM

I know it's only been a couple of days, but have you received any responses from anyone on this damning article Robert?Lots of responses, but none from official NS sources.

If I hear from them, it will go up on the site ASAP.

David Swidler

21st August 2007, 11:22 PM

Not modern Hebrew, but wasn't ancient Hebrew written with no spaces?

It had spaces, just like modern Hebrew. What's changed is mostly the usage of words - and of course the alphabet.

In any case, as someone who does know Hebrew and a smattering of Aramaic, I can say SB's "prayer" is pure nonsense.

Brown

22nd August 2007, 06:24 AM

It may be worth mentioning that there is a popular "out" that is often used with nonsense prayers.

This "out" finds favor in many branches of charismatic Christianity. According to the Pentacost story of Acts 2, people began to speak in languages that they had not been taught. According to the account, these languages were legitimate and not mere babble, and could be understood by at least some fluent speakers in attendance.

In 1 Corinthians 14, however, Paul said that not all those who speak in tongues will be understood by those in attendance, implying that NOT being understood is the norm.14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.This is the "out." In the event of some sort of nonsense utterance, the faithful may assert that the utterance is not in a language of men, but rather in a language of the Almighty, or a language of the angels.

1 Corinthians 14 also discusses an odd adjunct of speaking in tongues, namely, interpretation of tongues.14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
...
14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.Interpretation is basically the assigning of meaning to an unknown utterance. Even though the interpreter does not speak the "language," the interpreter announces what the utterance means. (Observational studies have shown, of course, that two people "interpret" a meaningless utterance quite differently, suggesting that there is no real translation occurring. Would it be otherwise, it could be strong evidence of the existence of the Holy Spirit.)

Thus, part of the "out" is to say that the uttered language is not an earthly language (and thus conveyance of the utterance is a miracle in and of itself), and the other part of the "out" is to say that the interpretation allows the meaning of an utterance in an unknown language to become known (a second miracle). You get two miracles for the price of one!

Would this be SNS's "explanation" for the prayer, that it is in a heavenly language rather than an earthly language? There is no way to say at this time. One can only say that there certainly would be ample precedent for offering such an "explanation."

Brown

22nd August 2007, 06:33 AM

The following is from Woody Allen's book, "Without Feathers." It pertains to religious texts that seem to be written in multiple languages:Archaeologists originally set the date of the scrolls at 4000 B.C., or just after the massacre of the Israelites by their benefactors. The writing is a mixture of Sumerian, Aramaic, and Babylonian and seems to have been done by either one man over a long period of time, or several men who shared the same suit. The authenticity of the scrolls is currently in great doubt, particularly since the word "Oldsmobile" appears several times in the text....

Gord_in_Toronto

22nd August 2007, 08:14 PM

The following is from Woody Allen's book, "Without Feathers." It pertains to religious texts that seem to be written in multiple languages:

But not your father's Oldsmobile? :eye-poppi

SeekingTruth

23rd August 2007, 06:29 PM

RSL...
Just curious, did you email a copy of the article to the office at NS asking for a response? If not, you might consider it so you can add an addendum to the article stating that you contacted them for a response and received nothing.

ST

AmyWilson

23rd August 2007, 07:34 PM

RSLancastr

23rd August 2007, 08:05 PM

RSL...
Just curious, did you email a copy of the article to the office at NS asking for a response?STNo, I have not. I have tried to speak with them by phone.

Do you people even read Sylvia Browne's books? She explains paranormal things in detail and why they happen.I have read several of her books. They explain nothing.

Obviously she believes what she says otherwise she wouldn't have written a bunch of books in the first place.Much like Steven King believes in vampires, werewolves, and little girls who start fires with their minds.

Kilgore Trout

23rd August 2007, 08:27 PM

Do you people even read Sylvia Browne's books? She explains paranormal things in detail and why they happen.

Obviously she believes what she says otherwise she wouldn't have written a bunch of books in the first place.

If you're ignorant of the paranormal then pick up a book of her's.
I did read Exploring the Levels of Creation, though not because I was at all ignorant of the paranormal, but I wanted to find out, if a little, what she believed. It turned out there wasn't much she didn't believe in.

magi

23rd August 2007, 09:06 PM

Do you people even read Sylvia Browne's books? She explains paranormal things in detail and why they happen.

Are you serious? Name one. Explain why it's true.

Obviously she believes what she says otherwise she wouldn't have written a bunch of books in the first place.

Why is that obvious? L.Ron Hubbard wrote a lot more fiction, that he *admitted* was fiction, than he did fiction that he swore wasn't. Tolkein was a far more prolific writer than Browne. His work was admittedly fictional, yet more plausible than what SB writes. Yes, I am saying that a talking tree is more likely than SB being a functional psychic. Why? Because there are such things as trees.

If you're ignorant of the paranormal then pick up a book of her's.

Again, what is it that makes SB the be-all end-all authority on paranormal, as opposed to abnormal?

You are making a pro-SB stand. Please tell me why.

schlitt

23rd August 2007, 10:02 PM

Another Great article.

Keep up the good work! :)

Minarvia

23rd August 2007, 10:14 PM

Do you people even read Sylvia Browne's books? She explains paranormal things in detail and why they happen.

Obviously she believes what she says otherwise she wouldn't have written a bunch of books in the first place.

If you're ignorant of the paranormal then pick up a book of her's.

Yes, some of us "people" have indeed wasted our money and time reading her books. I even donated some to Robert. I've read, once was gullible enough to believe her, and now see her for the cold and disgusting fraud she is.
And I don't want to lose any more IQ points by reading anything else of hers ever again.

schlitt

23rd August 2007, 10:16 PM

Do you people even read Sylvia Browne's books? She explains paranormal things in detail and why they happen.

Obviously she believes what she says otherwise she wouldn't have written a bunch of books in the first place.

If you're ignorant of the paranormal then pick up a book of her's.

I can also write a book explaining why paranormal things happen... it doesnt mean my explanations will be correct however.

There are many who pretend to beleive things they dont, and money is usually the major motivating factor.

JoeTheJuggler

24th August 2007, 01:00 AM

I predict that Amy Wilson will not engage in a dialog with anyone on this thread.

Prove me wrong, Amy, by replying to the several replies to your post. By the way, regarding these books of "her's" --Robert's site has already pointed out some false claims she's made, some contradictions, and--in the bio claiming Sylvia earned a Master's degree from a university that doesn't exist-- a complete fabrication.

magi

24th August 2007, 08:38 AM

I can also write a book explaining why paranormal things happen... it doesnt mean my explanations will be correct however.

There are many who pretend to beleive things they dont, and money is usually the major motivating factor.

Ba-da-bing. There's the point on it, right there.

According to guidestar.org, which makes non-profit financial disclosure forms available, Novus Spiritus filed a Form 990 for 2001 (the most recent, as far as I can see).

The list of Officers and Key Employees, part V, shows but one entry.. Syvia Browne. It gives her compensation as zero.

However, the sum for Other Salaries and Wages comes to $275,000 or so.
Total Expenses as $442,578.
Travel at $66,218.
Occupancy at $51,543.
Net profit for the year at $86,694.
Revenue at $488,217.

Now, I am no accountant, so I cannot say what is creative accounting, let alone fraud. Nor can I say why NS does not seem to have filed a 990 for the past 6 years.

But there's half-million reasons for motivation, right there.

Kilgore Trout

24th August 2007, 09:59 AM

It's been a not for profit religious corporation since '90, according to the current donation sheet available on novus.org, which also states it is still a not for profit. I don't think Guidestar claims to have all 990s, though it's still a good resource. However, by law, Novus is required to give their three most recent 990s to those that request it...

One thing I did find interesting (though probably just a typo and nothing more) while perusing novus.org is that the 'healing prayer' on novus.org seems to misspell 'sacravalian' in the 'Aramaic' prayer: "Arem, Shem, Beth, Sedal, Sacavalian, Ahad."

RSLancastr

24th August 2007, 11:14 AM

One thing I did find interesting (though probably just a typo and nothing more) while perusing novus.org is that the 'healing prayer' on novus.org seems to misspell 'sacravalian' in the 'Aramaic' prayer: "Arem, Shem, Beth, Sedal, Sacavalian, Ahad."

Yes, it has that typo in one of the three copies on their site, as well as a superfluous "us" in the translation on one of the other copies.

Also, in one of the books which contain the phrase, "sacravalian" is spelled (if I recall) "sacravelian."

magi

24th August 2007, 11:37 AM

Yes, it has that typo in one of the three copies on their site, as well as a superfluous "us" in the translation on one of the other copies.

Also, in one of the books which contain the phrase, "sacravalian" is spelled (if I recall) "sacravelian."

Does it matter? What I mean is, do they come any closer to non-gibberish with any version of the spelling?

Gibberish in, gibberish out...

RSLancastr

24th August 2007, 12:09 PM

Does it matter?Nope.

The typo was mentioned, so I gave the full story, to make sure people here knew I was aware of it.

schlitt

24th August 2007, 05:48 PM

Is it just me or does the fabricated meaning of the "prayer" seem some-what narcissistic?

RSLancastr

24th August 2007, 05:53 PM

Is it just me or does the fabricated meaning of the "prayer" seem some-what narcissistic?It's not just you.

The prayer before this phrase often is to "Mother Gods and Father God," so who the heck is the "Queen" supposed to be?

It's what struck me the first time I saw the "translation."

PastBrowneFan

24th August 2007, 06:00 PM

Why, Sylvia is the Queen, of course. Just ask her staff members.

Fnord

24th August 2007, 06:03 PM

Robert,

Great article! Thanx for your email response!

Fnord

Fnord

24th August 2007, 06:17 PM

For some reason, this might be my new favorite article on your site!
I have written some nonsense "prayers" for the cult in my film project, and this news just makes my fiction feel like a little less of an exaggeration.

What if you had one of your characters pronounce the entire "Blessed be this Queen ..." mantra, and he was immediately set upon by a fat, smelly, demon-thing with large claws and a raspy, whiny voice?

You could get Tom Cruise to play the person speaking the mantra, and ask a certain "psychic" to play the demon role.

Eh? ;)

Fnord

24th August 2007, 06:19 PM

RSLancastr

24th August 2007, 06:22 PM

An idea ... if it has not been suggested already ...It had been suggested above, by Kelly, IIRC.

I have considered it, and may do what you suggest later, but for now, no.

Thanks for the suggestion though!

Fnord

24th August 2007, 06:27 PM

It had been suggested above, by Kelly, IIRC.

I have considered it, and may do what you suggest later, but for now, no.

Thanks for the suggestion though!

Oops! I changed the text of that post between then and now. My bad!

Fnord

articulett

24th August 2007, 06:31 PM

Are you serious? Name one. Explain why it's true.

Why is that obvious? L.Ron Hubbard wrote a lot more fiction, that he *admitted* was fiction, than he did fiction that he swore wasn't. Tolkein was a far more prolific writer than Browne. His work was admittedly fictional, yet more plausible than what SB writes. Yes, I am saying that a talking tree is more likely than SB being a functional psychic. Why? Because there are such things as trees.

Again, what is it that makes SB the be-all end-all authority on paranormal, as opposed to abnormal?

You are making a pro-SB stand. Please tell me why.

AmyWilson is a known JREF troll. She loves John Edward (the medium)-- I think she may BE him. Engage for entertainment purposes only.

EeneyMinnieMoe

24th August 2007, 06:46 PM

The prayer before this phrase often is to "Mother Gods and Father God," so who the heck is the "Queen" supposed to be?

Good job on the article! You gave me a big laugh. :D

The first thing that I thought of was "Mother God" and the 2nd was The DaVinci Code. Mary Magdalene was referred to as "the Queen" there and even the rest of the chant rang a distant bell of Dan Brown's turgid, shapeless and inconsistent prose.

magi

24th August 2007, 07:32 PM

AmyWilson is a known JREF troll. She loves John Edward (the medium)-- I think she may BE him. Engage for entertainment purposes only.

Ahhh.. that explains much. Thanks for the tip. Nonetheless, a direct answer *would* be refreshing...

Entertainment is good too, though.

ysabella

24th August 2007, 11:09 PM

I wonder if maybe, years ago, she hired someone to translate a prayer into Aramaic for her? Maybe she got taken.

PastBrowneFan

27th August 2007, 07:59 AM

If Amy Wilson is a fan of John Edward, and possible John himself, then he/she should probably think hard about coming to the defense of the clawed one.

I personally know that she did a "lecture" with John Edward last year, and she had a fit because they wanted her to share the stage with him; she refused. She then stated that the only reason she was there is because he (John Edward) can not sell enough tickets to fill the venue, and they begged her come speak with him so they could sell the tickets (this is her version).

SB cares only about herself, and about her $$$$$$$$$.

Minarvia

27th August 2007, 09:06 AM

Wow...so "psychics" are as big of prima donnas as Hollywood celebrities. What a freaking surprise... : (

alfaniner

27th August 2007, 09:18 AM

I think I find it somewhat encouraging that JE had trouble filling the seats.

headscratcher4

27th August 2007, 09:31 AM

Robert:

It's Hitite...of course.

Once again, impressed by what you've done and continue to do. One small criticism. I wish you had someone on record with a history in NS as saying it was "aramaic" or that you had it in print from NS. I don't think that you are as suseptable to the claim that you are anti-religious, as to a claim that you got it wrong becacuse nowhere is Sylvia on record in writing or on vedio, etc. as claiming it is Aramaic. Not that she didn't but it would be nice if a John or Jane Doe who heard the claim would step up and go on record.

BTW...in a couple of more articles...you may infact have a book. You should seriously think about a full Joe Nicoll kind of expose. Brilliant stuff as always.

pspaddict

27th August 2007, 09:38 AM

If AmyWilson actually believes Sylvia Browne's books have any significant answers about the Universe then why isn't she amongst scholars and scientists? Surely expanding the knowledge of the Universe and existence would come with its own accolades. Getting $750 for a 20-minute phone call would be nothing to being considered our age's Einstein and receiving Nobels.

PastBrowneFan

27th August 2007, 11:26 AM

I have a history in NS, and I will again state that I was told this phrase is Aramaic by my then Liason, A Bishop who is still with NS, and that it was given to SB by her Guide, Francine.

Robert:

It's Hitite...of course.

Once again, impressed by what you've done and continue to do. One small criticism. I wish you had someone on record with a history in NS as saying it was "aramaic" or that you had it in print from NS. I don't think that you are as suseptable to the claim that you are anti-religious, as to a claim that you got it wrong becacuse nowhere is Sylvia on record in writing or on vedio, etc. as claiming it is Aramaic. Not that she didn't but it would be nice if a John or Jane Doe who heard the claim would step up and go on record.

BTW...in a couple of more articles...you may infact have a book. You should seriously think about a full Joe Nicoll kind of expose. Brilliant stuff as always.

headscratcher4

27th August 2007, 11:51 AM

Cool...as I said, it was a minor comment, which you have addressed. Have you gone on the record in your off-line life with Robert? It would help to have a credited quote to a former NSer. Just a thought, btw, Robert's piece is still very compelling.

JoeTheJuggler

27th August 2007, 11:54 AM

Does it matter? What I mean is, do they come any closer to non-gibberish with any version of the spelling?

Gibberish in, gibberish out...

Admittedly a minor point, but I'd say being inconsistent and sloppy with what is purported to be a type of scripture argues that they know it's an arbitrary, fictional bit of mumbo-jumbo.

If this were some sort of Aramaic scripture, they'd be very careful any time they recopy it to avoid having multiple versions of it.

Of course this point pales in comparison to the fact that it's not Aramaic (or any other language), and it can't possibly translate to the English they say it does.

Locknar

27th August 2007, 12:03 PM

<snip>
Of course this point pales in comparison to the fact that it's not Aramaic (or any other language), and it can't possibly translate to the English they say it does.

I dunno...I've given this some thought (and yes, my head now hurts!); say SB or the NS folks come back with "It is in the Aramaic that they speak in heaven, which is different then that spoken here; it is beyond human understanding"....what is the counter argument to that?

That would be similar to saying that Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia all speak English...yet admittedly all have versions of the “English” dialect.

RSLancastr

27th August 2007, 12:40 PM

headscratcher4

27th August 2007, 12:46 PM

Locknar

27th August 2007, 12:48 PM

That is what I fully expect their take on it to be.

There is no counter argument to it, just as we can't really argue with J. K. Rowling over the spells used by Harry Potter, or could not have argued with Tolkien over the Elvish language.

But if this is indeed their position, getting it documented will, I believe, raise a few more eyebrows, and get a few more people considering just what is truly going on.

100% agree.

If this is the line of defense they follow, you simply note that up until that moment SB/NS NEVER made such a distinction. It is almost like the Angles and "wings"...they never had wings until SB made a mistake...and now, well heck they have a whole rank system.

Fnord

27th August 2007, 01:05 PM

Didn't you get the memo? They speak EVERY language in Heaven! Just think of all the punditry ...

EeneyMinnieMoe

27th August 2007, 01:42 PM

So, they speak a language in Heaven? It isn't a place of universal understanding and revelation?

Also, its called Aramaic in Heaven? Not Godlish? of Gibberish? Does SB speak Heavenly or regular old Earth Aramic? Do her angels and spirit guids and sprits she communicates speak to here in Aramaic, Heavenly or otherwise? Could she provide more examples of Heavenly Aramic -- or regular old earth Aramaic? Where did she learn Aramaic so that she could identify it as Aramaic?

Its the Joseph Smith and his Reformed Egyptian problem all over again. However, Robert, keep asking the questions the stranger, the more rediculous the responses, the fewer who will take her seriously.

Yeah, that was what occured to me, too. If Sylvia gets all her information from speaking with the dead and with spirit guides and angels and everyone of those people speak Aramaic, wouldn't it follow that Sylvia Browne speaks Aramaic?! Why would they be communicating to her in English if "in heaven everyone speaks Aramaic"?

Oh, yeah, silly me, so that's why the dead can only come through in monosyllables! There's a language barrier between them and a hillbilly grandma who can barely speak English, let alone Aramaic, but claims to have a masters in it and once taught it (actually true!).

Pyrts

27th August 2007, 05:39 PM

It has all the characteristics of "glossolalia" -- speaking in tongues. There is no structure to the "prayer" -- it is simply a collection of sounds constructed into "word-units." Notice that she does not acutally use any syllables that do NOT occur in English, although there are some sounds and syllables in Aramaic that would not occur in English. It also lacks the structure of a human language.
http://www.meta-religion.com/Linguistics/Glossolalia/contemporary_linguistic_study.htm

But the announcement that it is "Aramaic" adds a sacred element to it for the believers because of the belief that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

There's many parallels with Brown and the pentecostal preachers who also practice glossolalia.

JoeTheJuggler

27th August 2007, 06:01 PM

I dunno...I've given this some thought (and yes, my head now hurts!); say SB or the NS folks come back with "It is in the Aramaic that they speak in heaven, which is different then that spoken here; it is beyond human understanding"....what is the counter argument to that?

That would be similar to saying that Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia all speak English...yet admittedly all have versions of the “English” dialect.
Dialects of the same language are usually recognizable by speakers of that language. A different dialect of Aramaic would certainly be recognized by a linguist specializing in that group of languages.

You're right. It's tough to discuss this with someone who thinks this way. The real problem is when they say it's an "Aramaic prayer" they think that the words they use can mean anything they want. (Even that "heavenly Aramaic" has nothing in common at all with "Aramaic".)

This is my best attempt at understanding woo-think: They think that each person creates his or her own universe. In that universe, you can--among other strange things--use words in any manner you choose. Since you're using them, they're your words, and any meaning you ascribe to them is OK.

In fact, words mean what they do by convention--by our general agreement as to their meaning.

So if they mean "language" to mean something other than the conventional meaning of language, and "Aramaic" to mean something like "not Aramaic", then dialog is utterly impossible.

JoeTheJuggler

27th August 2007, 06:05 PM

<snip> and a hillbilly grandma who can barely speak English<snip>

I'm shocked! :eek: You're not saying that you doubt her claim to having an M.A. in English, are you?!

Why, that'd be tantamount to calling her a dirty, stinking liar! ;)

SeekingTruth

21st February 2008, 09:52 AM

Interesting update regarding this article - Robert, you might wish to reference this in your article published on SSB. You'd think she or someone on her staff would have caught this discrepancy BEFORE the book was published.

Robert received an email from Linda Rossi in response to the article on SSB of Aug 19 2007 titled Novus Spiritus: An Aramaic Prayer? She said, in part:

Specifically, regarding your question of our prayer to Mother God, Azna: Arem, Shem, Beth, Sadal, Sacravalian, Ahad, these words were given to us directly from Sylvia’s spirit guide and our mentor, Francine. Francine stated these words were taken from ancient Aramaic text. For you or even a hundred linguistic professors to say they are not would be to unequivocally attest to the fact that you or they knew every word in all of the ancient Aramaic language and every derivation thereof.

On Page 68 of Sylvia's latest book, "Temples on the Other Side" I give you the following quote:

"After Francine presented information on the Temple of Meditation in the infamous salon, we received several letters and emails reporting that people were able to go to this hall and that their subsequent meditations were much more successful than normal. Many of them had also used our Gnostic chant "Arem, Shem, Beth, Sedal, Sacravalian, Ahad," which means "Blessed be this Queen on high, Who is sacred to all that come to Her."

Francine gave me this chant many years ago, and when I asked her what language it was in, she said,"None that is known now." Apparently it's an archaic combination of words or sounds that describe and give homage to the Mother God, and they go so far back into antiquity that researchers on the Other Side have charted them to be thousands of years old and have determined that they came through an early prophet. My study groups and churches use this chant all the time and report that they reap tremendous benefits from it.

So which is it?
Ancient Aramaic text or a language which to quote Francine is, "None that is known now."

Nancy

headscratcher4

21st February 2008, 10:01 AM

I personally like "researchers on the other side" -- that must mean they have bureaucracy!

ExMinister

21st February 2008, 10:26 AM

Nancy, I noticed this paragraph in the new book, too, though I didn't realize the discrepancy was so clear. My first thought was that she had included it based on Robert having questioned her on it. I figured it was her typical attempt to cover her tracks without mentioning Robert or giving him any unnecessary publicity. As usual, she doesn't hesitate to have Francine contradict herself when she thinks it's necessary, assuming no one will notice.

ETA: I note that "none that is known now" and "ancient Aramaic text" could be considered similar things, but it does seem to me that with this statement she is hoping to replace the "ancient Aramaic text" description with her new, more vague explanation now that she's realized she can be called on the first one. I think we have RSL to thank for this! Maybe her office received questions from fans based on Robert's article and this is her way of trying to back pedal to explain.

Spektator

21st February 2008, 10:38 AM

When I'm in a metitative mood, I just want to repeat these ancient words:

Bomp bah bah bomp
Bah bomp bah bomp bah bomp bomp,
Rama lama lama lama,
Rama ding dong,
Boogity boogity boogity,
Boogity boogity boogity shoo,
Dip da dip da dip,
Dip da dip da dip.

The Spirit Guide who taught them to me--well, I don't know who he was, but I'd like to shake his hand. He made my baby fall in love with me.

(Sorry--just feeling silly after a long night of reading manuscirpt!)

RSLancastr

21st February 2008, 01:23 PM

Nancy, thanks for catching this!

It seems quite likely that Browne stuck this in the book in response to the articles on SSB about the "prayer.'

I will definitely update the articles, or perhaps write a brief additional one to include this latest contradiction.

And Ex-M, I had heard that the articles caused many in NS to ask further questions about the prayer, making many in NS uncomfortable. This seems to be Browne's version of "damage control" regarding it.

rjh01

21st February 2008, 01:25 PM

Congratulations Robert. This is one more thing you can say when people ask you 'what difference are you making?'

luchog

21st February 2008, 06:43 PM

Wow, nice way to dissect this bit of nonsense. Even with my extremely rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, this seemed like it would be nothing more than gibberish. Especially with that "sacravalian" bit standing out so discordantly from the rest, as you noted.

There really is nothing this woman says or does that is not a complete sham. Keep up the great work!

luchog

21st February 2008, 07:03 PM

Luke (3:35) lists Cainan as a son of Arphaxad, and Cainan as the father of Sala [Salah]. According to Luke, Salah is the grandson of Arphaxad. Genesis (10:22, 24) tells a different story, with Salah being the son of Arphaxad, not his grandson.

I don't have my concordance handy, so I can't give specifics; but there's an error here.

The Hebrew word that is typically used in genealogical progressions does not literally indicate a 1:1 relationship, that is, it's not strictly referring to a son/father etc. relatioship; but can indicate a more distant direct ancestor/descendant relationship, such as a grandfather/grandson, great-grandfater/great-grandson, etc.

It's also worthwhile to keep in mind that Hewbrew (and it's close relative, Aramaic) is not a precise language, and the idiom that most of the Talmud/Old Testament was written is similarly imprecise. It depends heavily on metaphor and allusion, and is focussed on significant events and relationships. A genealogical list isn't necessarily a complete list of ancestors, but may only be a list of "significant" ancestors, those who are notable for some reason which may have been lost even to the writer/speaker.

These verses were used for centuries to justify the slavery of dark-skinned peoples, who were supposedly Hamites.

There is no scriptural support for this, and in fact it's a relatively recent invention, actually. In fact, paying attention to scriptural genealogies and other references, they would more likely have been the ancestors of the various other non-Arab semitic peoples, now mostly extinct, who lived in the Middle East.

Brown

22nd February 2008, 07:19 AM

I don't have my concordance handy, so I can't give specifics; but there's an error here.

The Hebrew word that is typically used in genealogical progressions does not literally indicate a 1:1 relationship, that is, it's not strictly referring to a son/father etc. relatioship; but can indicate a more distant direct ancestor/descendant relationship, such as a grandfather/grandson, great-grandfater/great-grandson, etc.

It's also worthwhile to keep in mind that Hewbrew (and it's close relative, Aramaic) is not a precise language, and the idiom that most of the Talmud/Old Testament was written is similarly imprecise. It depends heavily on metaphor and allusion, and is focussed on significant events and relationships. A genealogical list isn't necessarily a complete list of ancestors, but may only be a list of "significant" ancestors, those who are notable for some reason which may have been lost even to the writer/speaker.While I do not dispute your interpretation, I merely point out that literalists do not accept it.

There are some who treat these supposed familiy "histories" as part fact, part symbolism. There are some really creative folks who say they read the histories literally, but they introduce all sorts of assumptions and fudge factors which indicate that they are not reading them literally at all.

There is no scriptural support for this, and in fact it's a relatively recent invention, actually. In fact, paying attention to scriptural genealogies and other references, they would more likely have been the ancestors of the various other non-Arab semitic peoples, now mostly extinct, who lived in the Middle East.There is no scriptural support for the notion that the Hamites were dark-skinned. Nor is there explicit support for the notion that the three sons of Noah were the progenitors of the three principal races of human beings (one fathering the Orientals of Asia, one fathering the Negroes of Africa, the third fathering the Caucasians of Europe). This lack of explicit scriptural support did not stop people from adopting this tribalistic "explanation" of why people from different regions of the Earth look so very different from one another, however.

As for the notion of the Noah story being tied to racism as a "recent invention," this is--as best I can tell--untrue (if by "recent," one means less than a century old). Racism has ancient roots, and biblical justifications for racism (and for race-based slavery) have been around for quite a long time. I stand by my assertion that the verses in question "were used for centuries to justify the slavery of dark-skinned peoples."

The notion that the Bible opposes slavery seems to be a much newer than the notion that the Bible accepts (or even encourages) it.

blauregen

22nd February 2008, 07:54 AM

This was quite sloppy of her. Aren't angels and people in afterlife supposed to speak enochian anyway?

Reno

22nd February 2008, 09:13 AM

'sacravalian' sounds like something from a Ron L Hubbard book - or The Matrix.

Kilgore Trout

22nd February 2008, 09:30 AM

If it was a Scientology prayer, it would probably be "ASBSSA."

Olowkow

23rd February 2008, 06:33 PM

I couldn't believe there actually exists an Aramaic Blog! This guy sounds like he knows what he is talking about:

http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.com/2008/01/arem-shem-beth-sedal-sacrivalian-ahad.html

I'm betting the commas after each word contain all the missing meanings.:D

Bowing our heads: ", ,,, ,,,,,, , ,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, amen".

rjh01

23rd February 2008, 07:45 PM

I have left a comment in the blog telling him about Robert's site.

luchog

23rd February 2008, 08:05 PM

While I do not dispute your interpretation, I merely point out that literalists do not accept it.
Well, yes, but there is no scriptural support for that sort of literalism, and plenty to contradict it. Which is what upsets me about so much of the Religious Right (I hestitate to call them Christian, since much of their dogma is more closely aligned to biblical Pharisees than anything Christ taught).

There is no scriptural support for the notion that the Hamites were dark-skinned. Nor is there explicit support for the notion that the three sons of Noah were the progenitors of the three principal races of human beings (one fathering the Orientals of Asia, one fathering the Negroes of Africa, the third fathering the Caucasians of Europe). This lack of explicit scriptural support did not stop people from adopting this tribalistic "explanation" of why people from different regions of the Earth look so very different from one another, however.

No, but people will use whatever is handy to support their own prejudices, regardless of how much they have to twist it.

As for the notion of the Noah story being tied to racism as a "recent invention," this is--as best I can tell--untrue (if by "recent," one means less than a century old).

I wasn't referring to racism per se, since that's as old as humanity; but the notion that that particular passage in Genesis is justification for oppression of dark-skinned African ethnic groups specifically. By recent, I mean historically recent, post-Rennaisance/Reformation.

The notion that the Bible opposes slavery seems to be a much newer than the notion that the Bible accepts (or even encourages) it.
Actually, there is nothing in scripture that explicitly supports or opposes slavery; although it's been a tenet of the church since it's inception that all men are brothers in Christ, and by that reasoning, owning slaves is a suboptimal life choice for His followers. There are many things which are not prohibited or permitted outright, but which are left to the conscience of the individual; with the admonition to do nothing which would cause a brother to sin, and to avoid even the appearance of sin in one's own life.

The Church, however, is not a monolithic entity, regardless of how many people here assume and treat it as such, and all too many sects and denominations have elevated their own doctrines, traditions, and interpretations above the authority of scripture itself.

In light of the aforementioned admonitions, supposedly Biblical justfications for slavery are obviously, at least IMO, less valid than opposition to it. Particularly the brutal chattel slavery practiced in the American colonial to pre-Civil War period.