My Bible has changed! The Mandela Effect-- What's going on?

Alada

The Living Force
jose said:
Our world map has also changed..when I looked up at Google earth just like in this YouTube video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw98xbjLtPE. :huh: :huh:
Thanks for adding the link, as Laura highlighted already, it would be super helpful if you could summarise what you found in the video which is 17 minutes long.

Laura said:
SevenFeathers said:
When I went to the video link, it said video unavailable. What are the main points?
Indeed. Please be explicit and helpful, ankhepiphan. I don't have a lot of time and I read a lot faster than I can watch a video. List the points and also make it clear why you created the title of the thread. Has YOUR bible changed? If so, how did you notice it? When? Exact details.
 

Beorn

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Shijing said:
The JFK section was bizarre -- the six-seater limo looks totally wrong to me. Does anyone else have the same reaction?
I have the same memory as you for just about all of those cases Shijing. LUKE, I am your father, Sex IN the City, etc. The video of the JKF assassination looked wrong to me as well. I remember four seats, with JFK resting his head against Jackie after the shots. The two characters in the middle seem totally odd, as does Jackie's reaction afterwards.

With the bible verses I always used the NIV which still has old wineskins instead of bottles, grain instead of corn (Matt 12:1-8) although like the KJV it has the wolf with the lamb instead of the lion. If there has been a change I wonder if it was the source manuscripts or certain versions.

The island which was 'undiscovered' because someone went past it and found it wasn't there is a little unsettling. As is the globe with the land mass west of Australia but can't say I remember it ever being there.
 

Alada

The Living Force
herondancer said:
Mr. Premise said:
I think it's mostly nonsense due to people misremembering things or wire crossing in the brain. In the example of Mandela having died in another timeline in prison, I thinks that's simply people confusing Steven Biko with Mandela. In other words our brains have a category for famous imprisoned anti-apartheid freedom fighters. People vaguely remember hearing about Biko dying in prison, a wire gets crossed, and voilà.
This seems the simplest explanation. Going for the "timeline change" bit seems a a little over the top when a System 1 heuristic error is much more likely.
Laura said:
But let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater! There can be timeline changes!!
I think a lot of the examples can be put down to System 1 heuristic error, problems with recall, availability, which can then be further compounded if people start digging into it as a subject even greater availability and priming to seemingly support the errors!

As Laura said though, there can be changes, or maybe sometimes people are experiencing bleed-through from parallel realities or a shift in their own point of focus from one possible reality to the next.

The Lords prayer example could be put down to translation and interpretation errors that give rise to either the word debts or trespasses. But, what if there can be a shift in the timeline, from a more materially focused reality (debts) to a more spiritually focused one (trespasses). Some people could also be shifting then from a reality where it was always trespasses, to one where the majority now use the word debts!
 

shijing

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Beorn said:
I have the same memory as you for just about all of those cases Shijing. LUKE, I am your father, Sex IN the City, etc.
I was wondering while I was watching the video if this could just be some weird internet editing hoax designed to be a social engineering project or psy-op of some kind -- it's kind of reminiscent of that thing that happened early last year where people saw a picture of a dress in two different colors. The one thing that made me do a double-take tonight is that I have an old copy of a Sex in the City movie on DVD. I looked at it, and it says 'Sex and the City.' So I wondered if I could really be remembering this wrong, but when you do a Google search, it's clear, based on the search suggestions that Google offers, that there is plenty of search history on 'Sex in the City'. Very weird.
 

monotonic

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
On TV they do a lot of processing on voices to make them legible, and it can alter the perceived pronunciation of phrases. For instance 'and' often sounds like 'in'. People who remember it by ear rather than by sight may always think "sex in the city" even if the other way is true. That's how I rationalized it to myself anyway. But that is a powerful suggestion to retroactively change the DVD covers in my past memory.
 

monotonic

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
One of my family members remembers finding verses in the Bible that hadn't been there before and she hasn't found since, at a time when she and her entire family were surrounded by death and survived by coincidence. So I see a connection there between high strangeness and timeline changes.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Alada said:
[...]
I think a lot of the examples can be put down to System 1 heuristic error, problems with recall, availability, which can then be further compounded if people start digging into it as a subject even greater availability and priming to seemingly support the errors!
[...]
I've gone through some of the stuff mentioned above and I would agree that most, if not all of it, can probably be explained by the way our brains work and how that brain constructs and puts together our reality.

Athough some of the stuff really makes you go "woww!". So I wouldn't throw the whole thing out of the window just yet either, but some of those things are just so far out, that it is rather unlikely that a real "timeline change" is behind it.
 

shellycheval

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Shijing
There's definitely something very odd about this. For most of the material that was presented in the video, I fall into the 'Timeline B' group, where I remember the 'original' material that's no longer there. As I watched the video, I paused from time to time to search either Google or YouTube depending on what was being discussed, and it was pretty unnerving to see the changes as compared to what I remember.

In all instances of the popular media examples for which I have a personal recollection, I remember the 'original' versions. Some of them are contextualized; for example I remember being on the playground after The Empire Strikes Back came out, and some kids playing and quoting "Luke, I am your father." I had a C-3PO action figure when I was in early grade school, and it definitely didn't have a silver leg. I also clearly remember "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood", "If you build it, they will come" (that's actually quoted a couple of times on the forum), "Mirror, mirror on the wall" (from the Disney movie -- I never read the original version), "Life is like a box of chocolates", and "Sex in the City".

I never saw Moonraker, Jaws, or Silence of the Lambs, so can't comment on those, although in the case of the Moonraker clip, it's true that the 'new' version seems to be illogical based on what's explained. I want to say that I remember Curious George having a tail, but can't remember clearly enough to be certain (but he looks strange to me without one). In a few cases, the words in question in the examples above are function words ('the' vs 'this', 'in' vs 'and', 'they' vs 'he', 'is' vs 'was') which are less salient than content words, so less likely to be noticed if they were altered.

The JFK section was bizarre -- the six-seater limo looks totally wrong to me. Does anyone else have the same reaction?

The map section was the muddiest for me -- the one instance where I clearly don't have an 'original' memory is in the case of the large landmass to the west of Australia, which I don't have even a glimmer of. When I brought up a world map, Papua New Guinea did look closer to Australia than I remember, but it's difficult to be certain whether my mind is playing tricks in that case of not. Greenland also looks odd to me, but I can't say for sure if it's because of a size difference or not, or whether in this case it's just the power of suggestion.

In the Bible section, at first I thought that most of what was going to be treated might be explained by different translations -- the Lord's Prayer example could conceivably be explained that way. I'm not sure what to think about Matthew 9:17 (the 'wineskins' vs 'bottles' example) since you can find examples of both versions, although the 'bottle' translation is pretty awkward and I'd never seen it before; the same goes for the Matthew 26:45 example. The Isaiah 11:6 is just downright creepy -- I'm sure I remember 'lion' instead of 'wolf', and there are plenty of auxiliary examples to back that up, but when you do a search on it, all that comes up is the 'wolf' version (with the exception of Google Images). There are several links which say the verse is misquoted, but if that's the case I don't know why I'd never heard the 'wolf' version before now.
Wow. I have not watched the video. I have the same memories as all of these except I clearly remember "If you build it he will come," referencing, I assumed as the plot unfolded, the father who is the last player to appear. My Bible says Wolf, but lion is used twice right after that in verses 6 and 7.

Years ago, before I found SOTT, I picked up a copy of Bringers of the Dawn from a $1 sale table at the library and when I read the first line I felt a ZING energy-like surge through my gut that I should read this book, so I did. I few years later I picked that same copy from my bookshelf, with the highlighting from my first read, and read it again and I had a very powerful impression that I was reading a different book--that much or most of the words were different. It was so strong and disturbing I thought a lot about it for a long time and finally concluded that I had changed significantly between readings so my perceptions of the material in the book were also changed. But, I am an obsessive reader, both scholarly and pleasure, and have been my entire life and have read thousands of books, many more than once, and never before or since have I had the impression that the words of the book were actually new the second time around. It remains high on my list that I call "Weirdness Factors" that I have experienced in my life.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
JGeropoulas said:
zin said:
...
quote the changed version from your current bible, then quote what you remember. Or describe what you remember that has changed.
...
Yeah, there are so many various translations (and revisions) published, it would be essential to eliminate that variable in any comparisons.
Finding out and specifying the version and date of publication would be very important. Bible translating and publishing is a very involved and variable process. I have a collection of bibles, some of them very, very old. I'll go later and check an older KJV, but what I have to hand on the reference shelf beside me are:

Amplified version

New Translation of the Septuagint

Oxford Annotated Revised Standard Version

Greek-English Interlinear Translation.

I often compare one against the other because you would be amazed at how much liberty translators and publishers take with the text.

Anyway, from RSV on the Isaiah quote, we have:

11:6
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them.

The Septuagint has:

And the wolf shall graze with the lamb, and the leopard shall rest with the kid, and the calf and the bull and the lion shall graze together, and a little child shall lead them.

Amplified says:

And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatted domestic animal together; and a little child shall lead them.

Okay, here's the KJV:

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

I should add that I have noticed many times over the years that most people really do NOT know what the Bible actually says - even preachers. Dozens of times I've heard it misquoted, misrepresented, people claiming things were in there that I knew were NOT because, unlike most people, I actually read it from cover to cover starting when I was about 13, and a number of times since then.

If you notice, in the short passage above, the lion IS mentioned as part of a group lying down with other critters including a lamb, and I've heard it preached that the "lion and lamb will lie down together" even though it wasn't an entirely accurate citation. But, that was a popular preaching line when I was growing up... more dramatic, I guess. So I think a lot of other people may have been exposed to it and then think that they read it that way.

Corn was always the term used for grain in the KJV because I remember questioning this very early because I knew that Corn was from the New World. BUT, "corn" was a term for any grain from way back. The "corn" in the bible probably did NOT refer to wheat at all, but rather to barley in all likelihood since wheat is a demanding plant and barley is not.

For the wineskins vs bottle issue, see here:
http://biblehub.com/matthew/9-17.htm where you will read:

King James Bible
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

King James 2000 Bible
Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins: else the wineskins break, and the wine runs out, and the wineskins perish: but they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.

American King James Version
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runs out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

As you can see, even a bible that is called KJV can be different.
 

Tigersoap

The Living Force
Although I do consider alternative timelines, in those cases, I think it has more to do with a lot of people remembering something wrong (or consciously chosing to mess up people's recollection) and infecting other's people memories.

Taken into account how our memories are falible and can be hijacked, distorted or changed, I suppose that if an enough mass of people are convinced of remembering a specific event, or movie scene, or the line of a book differently than the reality then it starts to take a life on it's own, in total disregard from the actual facts.

Which leads to interesting questions about influencing reality and how to alter the perception of an event if enough people are convinced of a particular outcome (past/present & future I suppose).
It happens every day though, look at how the mainstream media skews the perception of what happens in order to solidify the beliefs of the masses.

From the above video I know two examples :

At around 15 min

In moonraker, Dolly does not have braces although "everyone" seems to recall that she had. Fact is, she never did.
Weirdly enough, I had the same feeling that she had braces but not because I remembered it but because the general consensus seemed to go that way. As if it was influencing my memory from afar.

Video of the original VHS tape (skip to 7 min for the scene )


https://youtu.be/1bMfjg96kNM


In the TV show the Young ones :

At around 17.10 min

A shadowy character that was never really seen.

_http://dangerousminds.net/comments/wait_what_there_was_a_secret_fifth_roommate_on_the_young_ones_the_whole_tim

The fifth flatmate doesn’t have a name and, judging from his (her?) hairstyle, appears to have been a homage of sorts to Cousin It from The Addams Family.

Hilariously, one of the creators of the show, Ben Elton, was asked about the mysterious figure and he claimed to have zero knowledge of the character: “I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about I’m afraid. There were four housemates plus the Landlord.”

However, a director from the show confirmed that the extra person in the scenes was not an accident. Geoff Posner went on the record thus:

So if my memory serves me correctly, Paul Jackson and I thought it would be fun to have some ghostly figure in the background of some scenes that was never explained or talked about. Hair all over the face so you shouldn’t be able to decipher gender either. The fact we forgot to do it consistently through the series shows what a bunch of amateurs we were in them days.
I do think it's pretty funny that they did that but it's no way a proof of divergent realities at some point !
It's just an old quirky TV show from the eighties that suddenly got a boost recently due that "discovery".

The person who noticed this fifth character posted the video in 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG2L4QtAGGQ&feature=youtu.be

and there is even an earlier trace of people talking about this from 1999.

http://www.eeggs.com/items/4674.html
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Beau said:
Here's a rundown of things that people claim are different than they remember them.

Star Wars scene with Luke and Vader. Many people remember Vader saying, "Luke, I am your father" while the actual line is, "No, I am your father". Even James Earl Jones is interviewed saying the first line.

C3PO always had a silver leg. I have no memory him having a silver leg, yet I asked others and apparently he always had a silver leg.

A striking example from the video is a scene from the movie Moonraker (starting at 13:25) where Jaws and Dolly fall in love because they both have braces in their mouths. But in the film today Dolly has no braces, which means them falling in love makes very little narrative sense.

Did the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz have a gun? (21:02) Apparently so, but I have no memory of any of them having weapons.

Mr. Rogers sang, "It's a beautiful day in THIS neighborhood". For me it was always it's a beautiful day IN the neighborhood, but that's not how it is now.

And finally, changes to the King James Bible that many people are noticing:

The differences that some see to the Lord's Prayer are shown in the vid at 49:37. That is, the actual verse uses debtors instead of trespasses.

Grain or wheat has been changed to corn (50:48) Wine-skin has been changed to bottle in Matthew 9:17 (52:01). From Matthew 26:45, Jesus tells his disciples to take rest, but it doesn't seem to make sense. Many people remember Jesus saying to wake now, behold.

And the one that has confused many, many people is from Isaiah 11:6 (55:00). Many people remember the line as "the lion will lay down with the lamb", but it's actually "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb." The video gives a bunch of real life examples of lions and lambs being used by people for businesses, for tattoos, being used in popular culture over and over.

Perhaps a lot these instances are people remembering things how they should be and not as they are, although that doesn't explain why so many people remember Mandela dying in the 80's. But the Scarecrow with a gun? And the lion vs. wolf? I think there is some validity to the idea of timeline changes here.
The only thing that stands out for me is the Moonraker scene, I really do remember that she had braces, but apparently not. Which is kind of weird as Beau says.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure I remember the gun with the scarecrow, especially the way it was shaking in his hand. I never remembered C3PO having a silver lower leg, but then would you have noticed? Images of it show that it's pretty tarnished, not exactly chrome or anything, so it doesn't stand out from the rest of his body, and how many scenes in stars wars (up until the latest one where he is all gold) show his lower right leg? The Lord's prayer thing seems a bit silly to me, since there are several different versions that have been around for a long time. The Isaiah thing might be just an summarized version of that passage, since it also references a lion. The same thing seems to have happened with the "Luke I am your father" thing. When people began referencing that part of the movie in popular culture, it made more contextual sense to say "Luke, I am you father" than just "no, I am your father". This kind of thing has happened with various other movies, "Beam me up Scottie" for example (that was never said by Kirk in any of the shows).

It seems that what most of this comes down to is an exercise in testing people's memories and assumptions and their tendency to "fill in the blanks". So overall, I'm not buying much of the stuff these people put out. Which of course does not preclude timeline changes or whatever, especially that moonraker braces scene.
 

monotonic

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I had the same thoughts about C3PO's leg. I could have just assumed it was the same color as the rest of the body, the video quality was so bad in those days. Small details like that went totally over my head because they just looked like video artifacts.

BTW, it seems to me a lot of people don't acknowledge just how bad the video quality was even in the 90's. I think they grew up with it and to an extent learned to fill in the blanks, especially when the context was a bit over their heads. Watching the Moonraker scene, she seems to smile at first but you can't see her teeth. From experience I know that my brain could easily insert braces into that darkness, because my brain knows the camera sucks at picking up dark objects. A few seconds later you see her teeth, but once I had an explanation I probably would have assumed the braces were covered by her lips (I don't know anything about braces).

But then again if this is intentional manipulation, then maybe you would expect the blips to occur in such way that they would be inconspicuous, or have a persuasive counter argument.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Joe said:
Beau said:
Here's a rundown of things that people claim are different than they remember them.

Star Wars scene with Luke and Vader. Many people remember Vader saying, "Luke, I am your father" while the actual line is, "No, I am your father". Even James Earl Jones is interviewed saying the first line.

C3PO always had a silver leg. I have no memory him having a silver leg, yet I asked others and apparently he always had a silver leg.
The only thing that stands out for me is the Moonraker scene, I do remember that she had braces, but apparently not. Other than that, I'm pretty sure I remember the gun with the scarecrow, especially the way it was shaking in his hand. I never remembered C3PO having a silver lower leg, but then would you have noticed? Images of it show that it's pretty tarnished, not exactly chrome or anything, so it doesn't stand out from the rest of his body, and how many scenes in stars wars (up until the latest one where he is all gold) show his lower right leg? The Lord's prayer thing is silly, since there are several different versions that have been around for a long time. The Isaiah thing might be just an summarized version of that passage, since it also references a lion. The same thing seems to have happened with the "Luke I am your father" thing. When people began referencing that part of the movie in popular culture, it made more contextual sense to say "Luke, I am you father" than just "no, I am your father". This kind of thing has happened with various other movies, "Beam me up Scottie" for example (that was never said by Kirk in any of the shows).

So overall, I'm not buying much of the stuff these people put out. Which of course does not preclude timeline changes or whatever.
Food for thought.
This is perhaps one of the few and humbling directors outside of mainstream Hollow-Wood.

My apologies i do not participate on tweet or face-b. But i truly think he would answer any dialog about his endeavors.

Mr. George W Lucas Tweet page.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeLucasILM/media?lang=fr
Rebooting my twitter to talk with fans . A long time ago the CEO of Lucasfilm. Film director, film producer, screenwriter.
Marin County, California
lucasfilm.com
Inscrit en août 2011

Active:
George W Lucas ‏@GeorgeLucasILM 16 août

https://twitter.com/GeorgeLucasILM/status/765635765531312128
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Joe said:
The only thing that stands out for me is the Moonraker scene, I really do remember that she had braces, but apparently not. Which is kind of weird as Beau says.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure I remember the gun with the scarecrow, especially the way it was shaking in his hand. I never remembered C3PO having a silver lower leg, but then would you have noticed? Images of it show that it's pretty tarnished, not exactly chrome or anything, so it doesn't stand out from the rest of his body, and how many scenes in stars wars (up until the latest one where he is all gold) show his lower right leg? The Lord's prayer thing seems a bit silly to me, since there are several different versions that have been around for a long time. The Isaiah thing might be just an summarized version of that passage, since it also references a lion. The same thing seems to have happened with the "Luke I am your father" thing. When people began referencing that part of the movie in popular culture, it made more contextual sense to say "Luke, I am you father" than just "no, I am your father". This kind of thing has happened with various other movies, "Beam me up Scottie" for example (that was never said by Kirk in any of the shows).

It seems that what most of this comes down to is an exercise in testing people's memories and assumptions and their tendency to "fill in the blanks". So overall, I'm not buying much of the stuff these people put out. Which of course does not preclude timeline changes or whatever, especially that moonraker braces scene.
I agree with all that. These examples seem to be less about the Mandela effect and more about the way people remember things and like you said, the way people fill in the blanks with regards to memory or don't notice/remember details like the scarecrow having a gun. I did watch Star Wars religiously as a kid and never once noticed a silver leg, but others have told me that he did indeed have that, so the simplest explanation is that I just never paid close enough attention.
 
Top Bottom