Talk:Abracadabra

Interesting But How True?

This is an interesting article but I am not convinced of the research.

Of the old languages, Hebrew is the youngest and, I believe the phrase is older than anything written in a relatively recent (and here the word "recent" is not to be taken too literally) language. Gingermint (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Go back to the Beginning, the very Beginning. Instead of trying to make a word fit languages that did not exist when the word was first used, find the word in the earliest written language. (There has been much discussion about Phoenician being the earliest, however Hebrew may well be the earliest - IMO. User jscott is some what close with Aramaic but this language is only 2000+ years old, and it was a combination of Hebrew and other languages.) I am suggesting that if you read Genesis (called Beresheet in Hebrew), the 2nd word is bara (masc. past tense "created") When this verb is conjugated to future 1st person, it becomes "ebra". The word is prefixes with an alef, the middle root letter is dropped, and the suffix maintains the masculine definition. Now do the same with "dbra". The root is DBR (or daber). Remember Hebrew is almost all consonants, and is very phonetic. The letters would be dalet, bet, resh pronounced daber. The middle word, 'ki' is chaf + yud (pronounted roughly KE or KA). When you put together the words it becomes: "ebra ki dbra" I will create (that which) I speak). And the magician says "I will pull a rabbit out of a hat - abra-ki-dbra! Which of course, has been verbalized in many languages since its creation, and therefore accounts for all the different spellings and variations in pronunciationWikimaxxuser (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)wikimaxxuser[reply]

????!!! Gingermint (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abhadda kedhabhra -> abhadda kehadabhra (or kehadhabra) ? My Aramaic is a bit rough, but I'm fair certain about this. — jScott j² = -1

What I would like to see here, is a sound bite of the proper Aramaic pronounciation, or at the very least a phonetic spelling. Zuiram 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore my last few edits - testing to see if a vandal-patrol bot is awake. Shimgray | talk | 00:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arabic"?

I removed the following from the article:

the Arabic Abra Kadabra, meaning 'Blessing' as saying ( Baraka...Baraka )

A friend who is a native speaker of Arabic assures me that this certainly isn't the case. -- Hex 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Aramaic is not the same as modern Arabic in the same way as Chaucer's English is not the same as Modern English. Aramaic is the language of Christ - a language still spoken in parts of Syria. The Aramaic alphabet is the ancestor of many Arabic and Hebrew words. Aramaic and Arabic are two different languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.42.185 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OtherUses template

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing: Aberah KeDaber

It is written:

"Another possible source is the Hebrew Aberah KeDaber which also means I will create as I speak"

There is no such thing in Hebrew. The phrase Aberah KeDaber in Hebrew means "Abera (gibbrish) while someone told me". The only possible proxminate phrase is "Evrah Kedabri" (אברא כדברי), I will create as I speak or "Evrah Kidvari" (אברא כדברי), I will create as I have said I will. 192.115.133.141 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaking modern Hebrew for more ancient forms. 75.3.236.39 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Abracadabra is a derivation that has been contorted over time and does originate from "Evrah Kedabri" (אברא כדברי), I will create as I speak. This does come from the Kaballah and is also used Hermetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.202.62 (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the standards for sources cited? Why would anyone use John Allegro as an expert source? The man's career and reputation do not warrant a reasonable level of trust for his "translation" of anything. Let's do some fact-checking before we post any old thing, eh?Infinityseed (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avada Kedavra is one letter away from avra kehdabra

It seems obvious that it's two letter sounds different. R becomes D, in avra/avada and V becomes B in Kehdabra/kedavra. Unless B and V are the same sound in aramaic, but since the word has both B and V that suggest that this isn't the case. So I'm going to say that it's two letters different, since the H in kehdabra just alters the vowel.

B and V are the same letter in Hebrew, and the Hs that are put in the phrase rarely refer to actual Aramaic spelling. 75.3.236.39 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a vandal changed three lines: "abracadabra" into "abracadavre", "abracadabr" into "abracadavr" and "abracadab" into "abracadav"

probably taking a cue from the paragraphs above: "V becomes B" and "B and V are the same letter in Hebrew"

However when that person also changed the A into an E, that IMO shows devious intent. William vroman (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version I heard was that it comes from "Abra k'dabrah", or "I create as I speak", originating from kaballah. I can't find anything confirming this, neither as truth nor myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.200.96 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alphabet origin

I'm moving this addition to the talk page unless someone can cite a reliable source for it. It would seem plausible, given the power people place on alphabets, except that leaving out the first "r" is not "much more common" in my experience (I've never heard of it), and it's a completely different explanation from the others, which all involve corruption of foreign words. --Allen 22:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The alphabet"
[edit]

A much more common form of the incantation is abacadabra, leaving out the first "r". In that case it's just the first four letters of the alphabet a-b-c-d, linked together with a's to make it pronouncable. The final syllable bra is then added for a ryming and rythmical effect. Because the alphabet was initially believed (by illiterates) to be magical, the first letters of the alphabet developed into a magical spell.

Thelemic Colonization?

The article on the magical formula of Abra-c-adabra contains the Thelemic 93 template, shown at right, while at the same time the Thelemic Abra-h-adabra page has been suggested for merging into the Abra-c-adabra page. Something should be done to rectify this, because right now the appearance is one of Themites colonizing and Borging non-Thelemic pages.

I suggest that either the Cadabra page should make a bare mention of Thelema, refer to the main Hadabra page, and lose the 93 template -- or that the whole Hadabra page, with its 93 template, be moved over to Cadabra, where it can become one subsection of many. Comments welcomed. Catherineyronwode 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the 1st suggestion. Here should be a brief synopsis, and refer to the main Hadabra article. I'll remove the template, someone else can shorten/merge the thelema paragraphs here. --Quiddity 19:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully admit that I went template crazy for a while there. I'm better, now. :) However, I fully support Abrahadabra as an independent article. If you do too, please stop by here and lend your support. Thanks and apologies for my unintentional Borging. –Frater5 (talk/con) 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I removed the following from the article:

===Father, Son, Holy Spirit===

"Some point to the Hebrew words av ("father"), ben ("son"), and ruakh hakodesh ("the holy spirit")"

The translations are correct, but I have a hard time seeing how the three from the word abracadabra. But I mainly removed the text because the Holy Trinity is not a Jewish concept at all, and therefore the word "abracadabra" could not have originated from the combination of these three Hebrew words.

While it could certainly be a Christian Concept, I agree with this sentiment. I simply do not see how אב, בן, רוח הקדש form Abracadabra. Unless someone can cite a source for this statement, I second this removal.68.239.220.146 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the words "and a Jewish magical symbol" from the text under the heading "Abraxis". There is no such thing as practicing magic in Judaism. - User: Dave31

 July 2, 2006

That's not true, Dave. There is a lengthy tradition of Jewish magic that goes back hundreds of years or further., especially with the creation of amulets, talismans, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infinitysnake (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't confuse Judaism (the religion) with the long culture of the Jewish people - not the same thing. There is no "magic" in Judaism; there is all sorts of folk mysticism in Hebrew culture just like any other nationality/ethnicity's. 50.111.59.83 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Convoluse 07:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)The father/son can be easily found within the Aramaic אב בריה which can be pronounced as "Av" "Breh", but the spirit is not to be found. Furthermore, it would make the rest nonsensical[reply]

Avra K'davarah

This article says that Avra K'davarah is another spelling, but google shows only two references to this form, both of which are in the wikipedia (en and ja). Is this spelling correct? This alternate spelling was mentioned about three weeks ago, on August 1st. Wrs1864 15:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answer: yes it is the same i speak hebrew modern hebrew arameic and english. and yes it is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.151.147 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Just to note: the image to the right is available at Commons. I didn't see reason to replace the ASCII representation of the triangle with this image, but it may be useful in the future. --Oldak Quill 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

עבדא

Corrected אבדא to עבדא - The aleph does not belong, nor do I think that there is such a word in aramaic.

Corrected it back in one place but not the other.

Aramaic עבד = do/make = Hebrew עשה

Aramaic אבד = lose/destroy = Hebrew אבד Mahrabu 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By changing אבדא to עבדא, the article has become self-contradictory. At present, the text reads, "The original Aramaic phrase was used with a Hebrew prefix Alef rather than the latter version with an Ayin. The difference was that the original meaning was 'I will create, as I say,' while the latter was 'What was said has been done.' The original Aramaic was either עַבְדָא כְּדַברָא, avda kedavra, which means, 'what was said has been done,' or עברא כדברא, avra kedavra..." The first sentence says that the original Aramaic started with an Alef, but the third sentence, which claims to use the original Aramaic, uses an Ayin. So, which is it? Poldy Bloom (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A colourful affirmation for this proposition may be seen as an outcome from a kabbalistic speculation on the first 17 Hebrew words of Genesis. One side of this proposition depends on the idea that language itself has a creative/transformative power. Initially, the first 64 Hebrew letters of Genesis were inserted in proper sequence into the illustrated 8x8 square, in a converging spiral that starts in the R-H corner.

Then, the sole letter ע (ayin) - Kabbalah's symbol for an aspect of the Creator known as Vast Face - is migrated from its regular place to a position just outside that corner. According to the Kabbalah, Vast Face remained outside his creation, leaving Small Face on the inside.

Why remove this letter? A provisional motive is that the standard numerical value of the letter ayin is 70 (Digital root =7), and before its migration, this ayin had been 49^th letter (7x7) in sequence. After its removal, there are no other 7s in the square. The gap it leaves is filled by all subsequent letters shuffling down by one place. Following that adaptation, the first letter-pair in the 6-letter first word of Genesis become augmented to עבר ABR which, very aptly, may mean 'to cross over/ through', 'transgress', 'translate' or 'copulate', all of which may have a place in esoteric, magical practise. Then, by artificially extending this word, we may generate another - עברא - that might be pronounced ABRA. If we push the boundary a little (ignoring the square), a valid Hebrew expression is כדברא (CaDabra) 'like a word', making a complete: ABRACADABRA (eg 'translate (or transmute), like a word'). In our present context, this would be quite significant because the 6-letter first word of Genesis is somewhat pliable. For example, its first half emulates the whole second word: ברא ('created'). And its root-word ראש (a head) is contained within prefix and suffix letters that spell בית (a dwelling). Also, its middle two letters spell the word for 'fire'; and removing them leaves the four-letter word ברית (a covenant) (check out Genesis 15:17-18). And after the migrated letter ayin is prefixed to this covenant it becomes עברית, meaning 'Hebrew (the language)'. In fact, the four letters I offered above as ABRA also scan in reverse as the valid word ארבע (arba=four). At one end of this arba is the letter ע (the accepted symbol for Vast Face), correctly on the outside of the square, which is an analogue of the Creation. And at the other end, inside the square, is a letter א (aleph) - the kabbalistic symbol for Small Face. Endorsing the abracadabra hypothesis, the evident cryptic content of the square does not stop at the first Hebrew word of Genesis, but is immeasurably more extensive. An obvious, visible example in the illustration is the meandering sequence of the letter ו (vav), that incorporates eight of the nine available copies of it. Their configuration is not unlike the Hebrew letter ל (lamed). Strange to say, there is a surprisingly resonant Jewish legend concerning 36 Tzaddiqim (Righteous Men). Since there are exactly 36 of them, they are also known colloquially as the Lamed Vavniks, because the letter lamed takes a value of 30, while that of vav is 6. It seems to me there is a fair chance that this story, along with the dual concept of Vast Face & Small Face all found their inspiration in this Square, which I commend as the Genesis Seal. And, just like this Genesis Seal, esoteric magic was founded in language and symbolism. From that foundation, the magical appearance of the word עברא (ABRA) invites the willing imagination to invent ABRACADABRA, by "transmutation, like a word".--DStanB (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is Original Research!

There's only one single source, and it doesn't seem to support the supposition that abracadabra is derived from either Hebrew or Aramaic, which makes the majority of this article original research.--69.118.235.97 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldnt it be a latin based word? In Spanish abra cadavara would mean "open up dead body!" Abra is a command to open, cadavara is cadaver, or dead body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.193.33 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point indeed, which endorses my reference to Genesis 15:17-18 (above) in relation to the 'tilted square' illustration. Those verses refer to Abraham opening up the dead bodies of three animals, before entering a trance-like state. It looks ever more likely that the word abracadabra was first coined by someone familiar with Spanish or Portuguese, and the Hebrew Genesis Seal that I described. Also, the Iberian peninsula was a hot-bed of Hebrew mysticism during the 12^th and 13^th centuries. Since this is a Talk page, I make no apology for offering original research, which may prove useful to someone.--DStanB (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR has no purpose on a Talk Page either, especially this sort of tripe. Keep your discussions on the use of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article.50.111.59.83 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no mention of other possible sources,see Abraxas for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.5.229 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish for cadaver is cadáver, with a stress on the accented "á". As far as I know, it is an abbreviation of the Latin expression CARNE DATA VERMES, flesh given to the worms. I cannot fathom how cadavara would derive from there... vara means rod in Spanish, so the meaning is quite distorted. --Wtrmute (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Indeed it is all original research. Here's mine, for what it's worth, since 'The first known mention of the word was in the third century AD in a book called Liber Medicinalis"' (a 4th Century Latin text). "Ab raceda re" in Latin means, more or less, "swiftly remove that thing." ("Gettit outta here.") It's very possible that this is just a nonsense word that sounds really cool and trips off the tongue, as well. We may never know. Gee, this is fun. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Eric[reply]

Confusion over the inverted cone description

If memory serves, aren't ancient languages (Latin, Hebrew, etc) written without vowels? Why would the inverted cone use them when conventional script did not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.101.31 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic languages didn't/don't use vowels (most of the time); Latin does, however. It just depends on the language: you can generally write Semitic languages without vowels and understand them just fine, but that isn't the case with most Indo-European languages (like Latin). --334 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the immediately preceding comment. To elaborate, this means that when a language like ancient hebrew (with no WRITTEN vowels) is transliterated to a modern language, we must account for vowels in the language as we know, or believe, they were spoken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.63.39 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaru speculation

Once I learned "dabaru" may mean "word", I thought that Abrahadabra may mean "The father of the word". Is there any chance that Abrahadabra may be the Name of the Lord? 77.46.185.53 (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of God

it is mentioned in "The dictionary of Angels" by gustav davidson, in the apendix, that the sword of god is known by three names: albrot, jehova elico and abra cadabra, in a conjuration taken from Grimorium verum. though this adds no true historical value. at least it's a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.117.233 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amram Kehati's theories

At present, the article contains a longish section about a theory of "The late Amram Kehati", which is uncited except for links to some web pages of unknown provenance. The section contains a number of statements of historical fact; for example "This was done to confuse the daemon or for various witchery reasons"; "the patient has to wear the amulet for nine days"; etc. If Kehati is indeed an expert on the history here, then it should be possible to find some citation of his theories in a reliable source. However, I was not able to find any mention of Kehati or of his theories in a Google Books or Google Scholar search or in a search of WorldCat. So I removed the Kehati section from the article, as being most likely a fringe theory of no particular notability.

Shortly afterward the change was reverted, by User:Israelkk, who apparently is related to Amram Kehaty, and whose entire Wikipedia history has been devoted to keeping this theory in this article. If this is truly a notable and reliable theory, I would like to see it presented with proper citations and provenance. If not, I would like to see it removed. I have not been able to turn up any reliable sources for it. If none is presented soon, I will remove it again. I will notify Israelkk that I have opened discussion here. —Dominus (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete this tomorrow unless someone argues for some other action before then. —Dominus (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did this. —Dominus (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Goodman, the world-renowned linguist

I removed an uncited claim about a theory of "Ephraim Goodman, the world-renowned linguist", because I was not able to find any publications of this world renowned linguist or any mentions of this world renowned linguist. I would be glad to be corrected on this matter. —Dominus (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amram Kehati

Amram Kehati died on 1973. Yes I am his son and I am spending time publishing his unpublished writings he could not publish due to his unexpected death. If you followed the cited references you could find this information.

During his 59 years of life he became a respected scholar of the Jewish Kabbalah and the Jewish Hallach reflected in dozens of articles and letters in magazines and books as you can read in his bibliography at http://sites.google.com/site/amramkehati/files/bibliography.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1.

The cited article regarding the meaning and origin of ABRACADABRA by the late Amram Kehati was found among other unpublished articles and books that he was not able to publish due to his death.

Electronic publishing is now as good and respected as printed publishing and it makes it easier for anyone who wants to publish his ideas, theories, books and articles without the need to spend a lot of money paying the large book publishing houses.

Your reasoning that you will not allow any material in Wikipedia that was not previously cited, means that no original thought and ideas like Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was allowed in Wikipedia if it was available back when Albert Einstein came up with his theory. The outcome is that you avoid new ideas from the readers. Do you mean that only in 30 years after some printed books and articles will mention Amram Kehati article it will be allowed? By this you make Wikipedia an archaic reference.

This is precisely correct, and succinctly stated, thank you. Scientific journals would be a good place to find original thought and ideas like Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in the days of its conception. However, peer review and experimental testing are necessary before such ideas find their way into high school textbooks, or indeed encyclopedias. This is intended to be an encyclopedia. Exclusion of an idea from here is not meant to imply anything about the value of the idea, only to state something about how it fits into this forum. User:scbomber 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amram Kehati theory is well founded in the Jewish religious (in Hebrew) literature as explained in his very detailed article which is backed up by many Jewish examples of amulets and references dated back for thousands of years.

I believe that as long as no respected Jewish Kabbalah scholar contradicts and deny his reasoning it should be allowed in Wikipedia.

Israel Kehaty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelkk (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining this discussion.

I did look at your cited articles, but they are self-published, and Wikipedia policy is that such sources are not normally considered reliable enough. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources, available here, and see this section in particular for the policy on self-published material. If, as you say, Mr. Kehati's theories are backed up by sources that are reliable under Wikipedia's policies, the right thing to do would be to refer to those sources in the article. —Dominus (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of verifiable sources that are visible to you is a silly thing to expect in a reference to esoteric magical tradition. I agree that a self-published article can often be considered "not enough," but how does one properly cite an article that is "published" by mystical tradition? Are you important enough that the rest of the religious community should turn out their pockets to you, so that you will stop deleting part of the Wikipedia posts that reference their tradition? You accuse Mister Kehati of devoting his entire Wikipedia career to maintaining this reference, but fail to realize that you are also participating in this sort of behaviour. Perhaps things of a mystical nature are not truly befitting this environment, wherein every source must be cited properly. Still, it seems a monumental waste of effort, no? Why argue so hard about something, simply to ensure a fact that may or may not be provable is not visible in the entry describing the origin of a word that has been used for mystical practices for thousands of years? Does it matter so much to you? Are you, perhaps, afraid that a single exception will allow for the open corruption of all of Wikipedia's sources? It is a valid fear, to be sure. I am going to look and see if I can find, in the more esoteric portions of the internet (away from google) some works by Kehati. Of course, you should realize, if you have read this far....Amram Kehati's articles were not published by himself, but by his son...and to Israel, I would recommend contacting Weiser Book company...they are always interested in intelligent books on the Qabala, and would likely be willing to publish them for you. (Mike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.147.55 (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is silly to expect verifiable sources in reference to the factual history of an esoteric magical tradition. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is unverifiable CANNOT be encyclopedic; what is verifiable MAY be. User:scbomber 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HaBarucha Dabar

What about the possibility that the Hebrew "habarucha dabar" is the origin of the expression? Translated literally, it reads, "The blessing is a word." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.134.107 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abreq ad Habra

Copied from Christian Churches of God website: ^[1]

"ABRA has a supposed significance as it is composed of the first letters of the Hebrew words for: Father = Abba, and Spirit = Rauch Acadosh. However, J E Cirlot in A Dictionary of Symbols, Dorset, page 2, considers the whole word a Hebrew phrase.

Abracadabra: This word was in frequent use during the Middle Ages as a magic formula. It is derived from the Hebrew phrase abreq ad habra, meaning "hurl your thunderbolt even unto death".

The earliest written record available of the word is in a second century poem Praecepta de Medicina by Serenus Sammonicus a celebrated Gnostic physician. He gave instructions for using the letters of this magical triangle which he used for curing agues and fevers. It was to be written on paper, folded into the shape of a cross, worn for nine days suspended from the neck and, before sunrise, cast behind the patient into a stream running eastward."

I make no claims as to the veracity of the above, but I'm wondering if anyone more qualified than me would care to comment on it.

Chilimac357 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Abreq" is not a Hebrew word. "Habreq" is, but it means "shine brightly" not "hurl a thunderbolt". There is no Hebrew word meaning "death" which even remotely sounds like "habra". Good try, but this is not the original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.143.121 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it could be "Habaraq ad Havara" meaning "The thunder toward Destruction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.132.87 (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At best, writing "Habreq" is a transliteration and offers no certainty concerning the original Hebrew word it is supposed to represent. For example, it could represent the word הברכ, meaning 'the blessing'. --DStanB (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p240.html

Poem

I noticed someone removed the poem, and I added it back. As the article is not too very long and it seems to add more than it detracts, I feel it is better to have it than not, but would open for discussion if the event anyone disagrees. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origins -- Why all the Confusion?

I am probably not wikipedia's greatest etymologist, or linguist, or polyglot... in fact I'm barely any of these things. I am, however, extraordinarily well-read. And the most reliable sources I have encountered seem to indicate 2 most likely sources:

1 -- "abbada ke dabra" is supposedly CHALDEAN (not Arabic) for "perish like the word"

2 -- "avra kehdabra" is supposedly ARAMAIC (not hebrew) for "I will create as I speak."

I have seen both of these cited, in various sources, as the origin of the word. I tend to lean toward the "Aramaic" version (assuming that is, in fact, proper Aramaic). Aside from the fact that the phrase "I will create as I speak," is very evocative of a magical act, and even indicative of a magical word, it seems to phonetically fit. When anglicized/romanized, it is not much of a stretch to go from "avra kehdabra" to "abracadabra." The difference here is really v - to - b. (I have seen a number of words transliterated from semitic language where v and b are transposed.)

Whereas, I suspect the "perish like the word," theory comes from analysis of Sammonicus' Liber Medicinalis, where the word was said to be used on an amulet, worn by those suffering malaria. Viewed IN THIS CONTEXT, "perish like the word," makes sense as a definition, as is clear by the form of the word on the amulet:

                               A - B - R - A - C - A - D - A - B - R - A
                                 A - B - R - A - C - A - D - A - B - R
                                   A - B - R - A - C - A - D - A - B
                                     A - B - R - A - C - A - D - A
                                       A - B - R - A - C - A - D
                                         A - B - R - A - C - A
                                           A - B - R - A - C
                                             A - B - R - A
                                               A - B - R
                                                 A - B
                                                   A

However, used in any other context / way, this etymological definition does not seem to make sense. And to my knowledge, this word was used in ways / contexts other than the triangular amulet.

"wiki answers" actually has a (much better) page describing the possible origins of this word:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_abracadabra_in_Hebrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.63.39 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I, too, have seen the "I will create as I speak." interpretation. What lends credibility to this is the underlying rationale of the biblical creation account, in which God's utterances "Let there be…" give rise to real results: And there was…. --DStanB (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abracadavre?

Should the song by Elena Siegman and Kevin Sherwood titled Abracadavre (combination of "abra kadabra" and "cadavre") be mentioned in the popular culture section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.68.137 (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria?

Q. Serenus Sammonicus calls the disease "hemitritaeus", which is explained by both the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Liddle&Scott Greek-English Lexocon as "semitertian fever". Is this really the same disease as malaria? WSJ is quite a scientific source, btw. ... -212.87.13.78 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Abracadabra” is actually a Hebrew phrase meaning “I create (A’bra) what (ca) I speak (dab’ra).”

Many consider that the word “Abracadabra” is actually a Hebrew phrase meaning “I create (A’bra) what (ca) I speak (dab’ra).” I don't know if it's from some kind of ancient Hebrew form, but it sure isn't from the modern Hebrew, so in my opinion there is a need to clear it out. Thank you and good day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.255.105 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variation on something I added higher up, substantiated with a diagram of the early Hebrew words of Genesis in the form of a tilted square.--DStanB (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abracadabra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

self-contradiction

In the "Etymology" section, the article states "Abracadabra is of unknown origin, and its first occurrence is in the second century works of Serenus Sammonicus, according to the Oxford English Dictionary", in the following "History" section it says "the first known mention of the word was in the third century AD in a book called Liber Medicinalis (sometimes known as De Medicina Praecepta Saluberrima) by Serenus Sammonicus...". Both sentences are cited, but to offline works so I cannot check which is correct. The article Serenus Sammonicus states he died in 212, and so he lived in both the second and third centuries meaning both dates are plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

Genesis 1:1 Bereshet bara Elohim. In the beginning created God https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

Bereshet meaning "proceeding from" Bara meaning "power" Elohim, or Alakazam, meaning "God" Proceeding the power of Elohim. Bereshet bara Elohim Abrakad Abra Alakazam Church of Britain (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew origin and Lawrence Kushner

The claim that the word is of Hebrew origin is cited to a book by Lawrence Kushner. However, Kushner writes that the word is of Aramaic origin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A possible source for improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.ccg.org/english/s/p240.html

[1]