Ancient Misinterpretation of a Modern Language

Claude Vorilhon’s books have influenced some people enough to inform themselves, and to go deeper into their spiritual and existential journey. In my case, when I read the BOOK THAT TELLS THE TRUTH, I became immediately suspicious. The example given on page 71 by the cosmic visitor put off any chance of believing. I continued reading in the interest of fairness and went beyond my self-imposed obligation by reading the second book.

My skepticism had finally reached its limit and I came to the sudden conclusion: Claude Vorilhon invented everything. It was on this page 71, that I discovered a little treasure which was quite revealing and a perfect example of Vorilhon’s bad intention.

It’s true that this passage I refer to is clearly understandable to French-speaking readers of the French version of the book, because it is a subtlety that is related specifically to the French language – a homonym which is not found in English nor any other language, let alone in Hebrew! And that’s the root of the problem because whenever the Elohim of Rael provide evidence of their claims, they mostly quote examples taken from the Bible, often referring to the Hebrew language.

So, in the example referred to on page 71, the visitor wishes to reveal to Claude how the men created by them were primitive beings, incapable of understanding subtle notions. Their primitiveness prompts them to give a sacred, magical character to the least sophisticated events that appeared to them supernatural. The Eloha then gives Claude an example of the deformation found in the Bible. Here is the English version:

The priests in serving the creators in their terrestrial residence – the temple visited by Ezekiel – wore aseptic clothing when performing their duties, and those clothes always had to remain in the temple, to avoid being contaminated by germs dangerous to the creators:

“When the priests have entered the holy place, they shall not enter the outer court without leaving behind the garments they have worn while performing their duties, for these are holy.” – Ezekiel 42:14.

They should have written, “for these garments are pure or sterile”, but that was incomprehensible for primitive people who deified all that was told or shown to them at that period.

– Intelligent Design, Message from the Designers, p. 50-51


Here is the original French version:

« Les prêtres chargés du service des créateurs dans leur résidence terrestre, le “temple” que visite Ezéchiel, avaient des vêtements aseptiques pour faire leur service et ces vêtements devaient rester dans le “temple” pour ne pas risquer de ramener des germes dangereux pour les créateurs :

‘’Quand les prêtres sortiront, (…) ils laisseront là les vêtements avec lesquels ils officient, car (ces vêtements) sont saints’’. (Ezéchiel, XLII-14)

Ils auraient dû écrire ‘’car ces vêtements sont sains’’. SAINS. Subtilité incompréhensible pour des primitifs déifiant tout ce qui leur était dit ou montré.»


Editor’s Note: Bold added to clarify wording omitted from the English translations.

Therefore, according to the French version of the Messages, the Elohim meant that the garments were “SAINS” which in French means “free from germs”. But the primitives wrote that the garments were “SAINTS” which in French means “blessed’ or “holy”. Vorilhon clearly states that the error is the misuse of the word “SAINT” instead of “SAIN”.

It seems like a good example, and pretty effective too. However, this reasoning is completely flawed as it is based entirely on the use of the French language which these “primitives” did not speak.
In fact, the origins of Old French date back to the Oath of Strasbourg in 842 AD. Middle French emerged later in the 15th century, and Modern French in the 17th century.

So how was it possible for our primitive ancestors to confuse two French homonyms when the language didn’t even exist? Wouldn’t it be more likely that they made the mistake in Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Latin? Could such a mistake even occur in those languages?

In the example, it’s specified that “they should have written”. How could they write correctly in French language when it was not invented?

To use the subtlety of the French language to demonstrate that the primitives deified all that was incomprehensible to them, is a crude, awkward and absurd approach.

If my memory is correct, Leon Mellul – Raelian Guide, had written a text to explain away this bad example. Perhaps the author thought the same as this reference has been removed from the English versions of the same book. His explanation was completely incomprehensible and sought to play with the intelligence of the reader. His text to defend this passage was indefensible.

So many people in the Raelian movement can recognize this nonsense. Surely people like Brigitte BoisselierMarcel Terrusse, Marc Rivard must recognize this illogical error, if they are able to put their emotions behind them.

Spread the love

Maryse Péloquin

Maryse has researched the Raelian Movement for over 10 years before writing her book "Raël: Voleur d'âmes". She continues her research and activism today and can be found on her Facebook group "Rael Alternate Truth - Claude Vorilhon."

Leave a Reply