The "Mandela Effect"- Has my Bible changed? Or do I just have a bad memory like most people?

[shijing]

All of which leads me to conclude that what we are dealing with here in this "mandela effect" (not to mention the children's books about a Bear family) is a Jewish conspiracy of unfeasible proportions!

Well, you know they've already taken over Hollywood, which is where half of these examples come from ;)

 

[Joe]

Of course, with all the above being said, how do I reconcile the Mirror, mirror on the wall vs Magic mirror on the wall . . .
Yeah, I'm going w/ Keel's cosmic jokers messin' w/ my head, it doesn't really matter (thanx Scottie), and the Zoroastrianism thread is waay more interesting and a much better use of my time and energy. :D

No need for cosmic jokers on this one either.

It is both “Mirror, mirror, on the wall…” AND “Magic mirror, on the wall..”

In the 1937 Disney classic, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Evil Queen utters the famous line “Magic mirror, on the wall – who is the fairest one of all?”.

But in the original Brothers Grimm story (translated into English), it's "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who in this land is fairest of all?" This version was then used in various other adaptations of the story. In fact, some later Disney products changed it further. In a 1973 Disney book of the story, for example, it is written:

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of us all?

 

[JEEP]

Of course, with all the above being said, how do I reconcile the Mirror, mirror on the wall vs Magic mirror on the wall . . .
Yeah, I'm going w/ Keel's cosmic jokers messin' w/ my head, it doesn't really matter (thanx Scottie), and the Zoroastrianism thread is waay more interesting and a much better use of my time and energy. :D

No need for cosmic jokers on this one either.

It is both “Mirror, mirror, on the wall…” AND “Magic mirror, on the wall..”

In the 1937 Disney classic, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Evil Queen utters the famous line “Magic mirror, on the wall – who is the fairest one of all?”.

But in the original Brothers Grimm story (translated into English), it's "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who in this land is fairest of all?" This version was then used in various other adaptations of the story. In fact, some later Disney products changed it further. In a 1973 Disney book of the story, for example, it is written:

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of us all?

Thanks Joe - mystery solved! I hadn't finished watching the Red Pill vid so I thought the Mirror question was going to be on it - it wasn't. I then thought that perhaps the newer Snow White movies of late had scripted Magic Mirror on the wall and that was why that version had become known. Although I saw commercials for all those various SW movies, I never watched them so didn't know how the Queens in them addressed the mirror. I'm pretty sure I saw Disney's Snow White, but I believe I was quite young - 3 even? I really liked the Disney cartoons as most kids of the 50s did and it was always Mirror, mirror on the wall in my mind just as it was indeed a Magic mirror.

I guess we all should have paid closer attention to what we were watching - who knew in 40 to 60 years there was going to be a test?!!

 

[Laura]

When I was young and people read this series of books out loud, they would pronounce the last syllable of the name as though it rhymed with 'codeine', which indicates that they were seeing the word as 'Berenstein', not as 'Berenstain'. So following your argument above (and it's true that our brains register words as whole units rather than processing them atomistically), would you say that the simplest explanation is that everyone was making this error collectively, and that the erroneous pronunciation may have even been reinforced because people heard others around them making the same mistake?

Yes. Not only did people probably convert it in their minds to "stein" because that is part of a commonly known surname (and it is a Bear family surname we are talking about here), but people would then have commonly spoken it as "stein"

Then of course there is the problem of the pronunciation. I think a lot of people pronounce "stein" as "steen" in English speaking countries like the USA. But it is also pronounced "stine" as is the original German pronunciation, as in Einstein. Personally I would always pronounce the surname "Goldstein" (for example) as "Goldsteen" rather than "Goldstine".

All of which leads me to conclude that what we are dealing with here in this "mandela effect" (not to mention the children's books about a Bear family) is a Jewish conspiracy of unfeasible proportions!

Funny thing is, I distinctly remember reading it and wondering why it was NOT stein and thinking it was an odd variation of the name.

 

[WIN 52]

All of which leads me to conclude that what we are dealing with here in this "mandela effect" (not to mention the children's books about a Bear family) is a Jewish conspiracy of unfeasible proportions!

Well, you know they've already taken over Hollywood, which is where half of these examples come from ;)

I remember when the books first came out and everyone was pronouncing it wrong. This was something that I spent some time thinking about. I came to the conclusion that people don't really read what is written and fill in the blanks or substitute things that make more sense to them.

I actually use this quite a bit today. It's a good way to find out who is paying attention to reality and who is lost in a dream world. I tend to avoid interactions with the latter as it is difficult to have any type of dealings with these.

Yes, it does happen with some of my posts in here as well. I did have problems with a moderator in here when I first joined. She has been removed as a moderator. In fact the whole flavor of her posts towards me were offensive, yet I was able to take some positive things out of those interactions. I didn't take her bait!

 

[Keit]

Yeah. Take the "Luke, I am your father" example. The original says "No" instead of "Luke", because it is in reply to Luke saying something like "I know enough, you killed my father!", so replying "no" makes sense. But when quoting the phrase afterwards, there is no point in contextualizing it within a dialogue, so it's natural to come up with a memorable, close enough phrase.

Another example would be “Elementary, my dear Watson“, one of those phrases that everybody knows the character of Sherlock Holmes said. While he actually never said it.

The whole topic also reminds me about mishearing lyrics, and how before the internet we all sang songs as we understood them, and how often we were ridiculously dead wrong.

 

[WIN 52]

I do clearly remember the braces on the girl. That is the connection between her and Jaws. Didn't they show that connection more than once in the movie, like at the end also? But really, it doesn't matter one way or the other. We are already informed that there are alternate realities in play. We need to pay attention to the here and now.

What can we take away from this thread?

Humans tend to live in a world full of false beliefs, not by choice but rather by not paying attention to what is happening within their field of influence. The extreme cases are very toxic to be around. But, they can present an opportunity for growth and learning.

 

[kenlee]

If there is anything to this 'Mandela Effect' I would think that there might be two aspects to it. An outer aspect and an inner aspect where in it's existential aspect something physical, actual, might actually change in the present moment of a given timeline. But this may simply be a reflection of an event of essential significance that has happened in the past and still lives, NOW, in the greater consciousness, and maybe even be reflected back into the past changing the original event.

If one focuses only on the physical change/anomaly then there's going to be a lot of subjective speculation, wrong and magical thinking and simple speculative entertainment relating to an event that has its true basis in an essential reality that still 'lives and grows' in an expanded present moment and can, perhaps at certain crossover points, enter this timelime and, in some way infuse the essential significance of this event into the mass consciousness where peoples attitudes can suddenly 'shift' into another way of thinking, or perhaps new attitudes may suddenly emerge into the general consciousness.

So any subtle changes in this physical reality may reflect that and this is what some may feel intuitively (and can easily misinterpret), but to focus only on it's outer aspects (in time) is to lose the 'depth' of the essential worlds of values and significance that it is but a reflection of. Any event of significance that expands, lives and grows may rotate out of the causal stream into the acausal realms and then roll back into into the causal stream again at certain points in the future, energize it, and then suddenly people are suddenly talking about it but don't even know why they are. Ok, this is only a theory (FWIW!) but this 'Mandela Effect' may have it's basis on something like that although I really don't know. But this does remind me of this quote from William James in his book 'The Varieties of Religious Experience':

The whole drift of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one out of many worlds of consciousness that exist, and that those other worlds must contain experiences which have a meaning for our life also; and that although in the main their experiences and those of this world keep discrete, yet the two become continuous at certain points, and higher energies filter in."

 

[JGeropoulas]

...
The shifts were not the point. The shifts were simply a marker, a clue that something was amiss.

Cataloging these potential shifts or changes simply for the sake of it therefore doesn't really mean anything. Okay, C-3PO had a silver leg. In and of itself, what difference does that make?

I completely agree. Most Mandela Effects are extremely trivial in themselves, for sure. However I do find it very odd that now Luke 19:27 portrays Jesus as murderously intolerant of “infidels”. Is this the beginning of some PSYOPS agenda to co-opt Christianity to create “radical Christian terrorists”, just as we’ve seen done with Muslims the past 20 years? How could this be done? I don’t know, but the C’s have said that the government’s technology is much more advanced than “official” technology shared with the masses. (I’ll post soon about NASA spending $20 million on one of the first 2 quantum computers built, which according to the physicist CEO’s admittedly simplified explanation, operates via a central chip which utilizes the “double slit” principle to be in two positions simultaneously (0 and 1) so as to bridge into a parallel universe to “retrieve resources”. They’ve continued amplifying these machines to the point they now have hundreds of these chips, providing access to an exponential number of parallel universes)

Many of us have long theorized that reality is far more complicated than we think, and that there is much more beyond our 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. Continuing along this theoretical line, one might also then theorize that if there are higher-dimensional denizens, they might screw with us. In that case, it would be highly likely that many such "shifts" have happened over the millenia. Thus, that shouldn't be terribly surprising.

But again, without linking those shifts to actual events back here in the real world, what's the point? They don't mean anything to us here and now on Planet Earth in 2016 as we sit on the potential brink of WWIII.

There's a lot going on, and we need to pay attention to it. Sure, it's kind of hard to focus on "objective reality" when it seems that reality might be more fluid than we thought, but actually that's one of the primary reasons to focus on it: because by staying abreast of what is going on NOW, we are in a better position to navigate what is happening and what is yet to come.

For me, the main value of all this time is that now, time line shifts seem experientially real instead of just theoretical—which motivates me to work even harder to increase my awareness and discernment.

On the other hand, we could zone out and focus more strictly on the "woo-woo" parts like reality shifts. In that case, we risk missing the forest for the trees.
...
Finally, imagine what could happen if even weirder stuff starts happening... Imagine that 3d starts becoming more like 4d. We could spend all our waking hours just totally fascinated and obsessed by all the "weird stuff" going on.

In that case, how long do you think we would last? The ship that is not manned, steered, and maintained generally ends up smashed to pieces on the rocks.

Agreed, but certainly as “weirder stuff starts happening” we should seek to fully analyze it to determine it’s meaning, mechanisms, and how best to utilize/avoid it.

As far as understanding the Mandela Effect, it seems to me, that all these examples cited are a mixed bag, with explanations ranging among the different interpretations proposed here in this thread: some simply due to mistaken hearing of phrases (“Interview With The Vampire” vs. “Interview With A Vampire”), while others supported by historical evidence that defies logical explanation).

In addition to actual time line shifts, another possible explanation might be something like “inverse déjà vu” in which something in the present reality seems palpably unfamiliar. When this occurs, people mistakenly conclude something in the present is different from how it was in the past, when in fact, it is actually different from how it is/was in a parallel universe—which has entered their consciousness as the result of “bleedthrough” or “reality bridging”. If so, this may be happening more frequently as the Wave approaches which might explain the upsurge in this Mandela Effect experience.

January 3, 2009 Session

Q: (D) Well, thin silk. Right, okay. (A____) Can I ask another question? (L) Yes. (A____) Why do I have so much deja vu?
A: The program is constantly being meddled with at present.

January 4, 1997 Session

Q: (L) That still doesn't help me to understand deja vu as a "sensation of reality bridging." Is deja vu because something comes
into our reality from another?
A: One possibility.

Q: (T) Didn't we talk about this? That it is a bleedthrough from other dimensions... that when we think we have been someplace
before, it is because in another dimension we have...
A: Yes.

Q: (L) If you are now in a particular universe that has been created and merged by 4th density STS, and there is still the old
universe existing, and you feel a connection, or a bridging, because some alternate self is in that alternate universe, living
through some experience... or a similar thing?
A: No limits of possibilities.

 

[HiThere]

The other day, I saw there is some new movie coming out with John Goodman in it. I was totally sure that John Goodman had died! Well, that's curious, no? But who knows... maybe my brain is just confusing him with somebody else. So, what to do? I mentioned it. It was recorded in my brain, filed away, and life went on. So far, there is no significance that I can see even for me personally, so it just gets filed away.

I also thought that he was dead. Maybe a false news story at some point?

 

[JEEP]

The other day, I saw there is some new movie coming out with John Goodman in it. I was totally sure that John Goodman had died! Well, that's curious, no? But who knows... maybe my brain is just confusing him with somebody else. So, what to do? I mentioned it. It was recorded in my brain, filed away, and life went on. So far, there is no significance that I can see even for me personally, so it just gets filed away.

I also thought that he was dead. Maybe a false news story at some point?

Maybe a stretch, but perhaps confused w/ the late John Candy as he was also a tall, rotund actor?

 

[JGeropoulas]

The other day, I saw there is some new movie coming out with John Goodman in it. I was totally sure that John Goodman had died! Well, that's curious, no? But who knows... maybe my brain is just confusing him with somebody else. So, what to do? I mentioned it. It was recorded in my brain, filed away, and life went on. So far, there is no significance that I can see even for me personally, so it just gets filed away.

I also thought that he was dead. Maybe a false news story at some point?

Maybe a stretch, but perhaps confused w/ the late John Candy as he was also a tall, rotund actor?

Yeah, that was my first thought too.

 

[onemen]

Ok then what about the Mattew 26:45-46 about Wake Up/Sleep-rest ? For some reason It's bugging me the most.
Am I one of thoses who always thought Jesus said to his disciples "to stay awake / not to sleep". Or I was wrong from the beginning on this ?
Because when I heared about this on the Red Pill video, I had to verify because I always though he said to "stay awake"and It is just told "you are sleeping now and resting yourself" (It's Louis Segond in French) but in other versions It's clearly said a variation of "Sleep on now/rest/take your rest".
In fact, I always had an image in mind from the Jesus movie of 1979 where he descended a moutain after praying and telling his disciples to stay awake before the military coming to take him.
But now I've just learned that the movie was based on the Luke gospel
(Watch here at 1:22:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWYuIe8ftHA).
Well it's not really matching my memory of him descending a mountain but even so it still don't make sense, as in the matching history segment to Mattew, he is depicted saying: "Why are you sleeping?" he asked them. "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation." (Chap 22: verse 46), which is closer to the idea of "Wake up/don't sleep I had in mind.

Well, I've even cited this verse to a relative not later than a few weeks ago. I also had in mind that reference from Marianne Williamson about Jesus asking to stay awake in Love Reality Time of transition.

 

[Alada]

Ok then what about the Mattew 26:45-46 about Wake Up/Sleep-rest ? For some reason It's bugging me the most.
Am I one of thoses who always thought Jesus said to his disciples "to stay awake / not to sleep". Or I was wrong from the beginning on this ?
Because when I heared about this on the Red Pill video, I had to verify because I always though he said to "stay awake"and It is just told "you are sleeping now and resting yourself" (It's Louis Segond in French) but in other versions It's clearly said a variation of "Sleep on now/rest/take your rest".
In fact, I always had an image in mind from the Jesus movie of 1979 where he descended a moutain after praying and telling his disciples to stay awake before the military coming to take him.
But now I've just learned that the movie was based on the Luke gospel
(Watch here at 1:22:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWYuIe8ftHA).
Well it's not really matching my memory of him descending a mountain but even so it still don't make sense, as in the matching history segment to Mattew, he is depicted saying: "Why are you sleeping?" he asked them. "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation." (Chap 22: verse 46), which is closer to the idea of "Wake up/don't sleep I had in mind.

Well, I've even cited this verse to a relative not later than a few weeks ago. I also had in mind that reference from Marianne Williamson about Jesus asking to stay awake in Love Reality Time of transition.

Well seems to me the above adds to the data supporting the idea that combining many sources just muddies the water, we miss remember and or substitute and fill in the blanks. Did you see Laura’s earlier post on Bible quotations here?

On the subject of glitches in the ways we read reality and subsequently think, have you read Thinking Fast and Slow? Read the book and then reexamine what you wrote above.

 

[Cosmos]

What also strikes me about the "Mandela Effect" business is the nature of it. As mentioned before, it has a lot of similarities to the "flat earth" business.

What makes the Mandela Effect even more dangerous though, is that people who believe in it, or get captured in it, can very easily dismiss any rational argument like:

"the leg of C-3PO was always silver, if you look closely at the actual old tapes and ask Anthony Daniels who played him in the movies"

since they can always say and believe that when the timeline has actually changed in that context (as they believe), then all the hard data and people who engaged in it, that proof the opposite, have changed too (and are thus clueless themselves), so that actual data itself doesn't proof the none existence of that change! So any rational argument can thus be easily filed away as "the way that change has recreated reality".

So essentially the people engaged in this Mandela Effect, can and do, only rely on their own brains (without knowing anything about it), when assessing the informations related to "the effect", since that is in the end their only real reference point that "proofs" that a change has occurred, since there must have been "a glitch somewhere in the change process" that allowed them to remember the other time line.