This End Times Deception post debunks the Mandela Effect PSYOP, Psychological Operation.
Here is a video that shows how there appears to be changes in the KJV.
It’s war on the minds of believers to get them to doubt the King James, the one version of the Bible that people believe that they can rely on.
People are saying that CERN was used to travel back in time to make the changes, which then caused our current reality to be different.
But if they traveled back in time to make the changes, then everything would have been changed from that point forward, and everyone would have memories based on their changes.
So if they changed the KJV to say ‘bottles’ instead of ‘wineskins’, then everyone would have a memory of bottles.
Don’t you think that the many employees of Chick-Fil-A would have noticed the name change from Chic-Fil-A, and said something about it?
Don’t you think that the many employees and owners of Ford would have noticed that their logo had changed, and said something about it?
Don’t you think that the many employee’s at J.C. Penney would have noticed the name changed from J.C. Penny, and said something about it?
I worked at a Sears for nine years, and our main competition in the mall was J.C. Penney. The name has not been changed.
It seems that the Mandela Effect only effects people who see the information on Facebook and YouTube, because the rest of the world has not noticed.
I will provide some proofs below, but here is how you can prove that the words have not been changed in the King James Bible.
Here is a link to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, which has been used by students of the Bible since its introduction in the 1860’s. Just look up the word that supposedly got changed, and it will show you that it has always been in the King James.
Many great theologians have written whole Bible commentaries based on the King James Bible. You can reference their comments that were written from the 16th-19th centuries, which include the words, proving they have not changed.
Here is a link to Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible, which was written in the 17th century. Look up the passage to see his notes. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc.html
I also like Adam Clarke Commentary, which was written in the 19th century.
They proclaim that the lion was changed to a wolf, in Isaiah 11:6
That is an association that people have been conditioned with. No doubt many Pastors have said ‘the lion and the lamb’, but the Bible has never said that.
Isaiah 65:25 also says the wold, “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”
Mandela Effect: Lion & Lamb FULLY Debunked with 18 centuries of proof of Isaiah 11:6
If you Google Isaiah 11:6 and look at the images, you see memes like this:
Here’s one that creates the false association. The verse says ‘wolf’, but the image has a ‘lion’.
If you go to Bible Hub and look up that verse, every Bible version says ‘wolf’.
The NIV, NAS, ESV, NKJ, YLT, etc., all say ‘wolf’.
So the Mandela effect would have had to change all Bibles, not just the King James.
Here are Bibles that preceded the King James, which all say ‘wolf’.
The Geneva Bible (1587)
The wolfe also shall dwell with the lambe, and the leopard shall lie with the kid, & the calfe, and the lyon, and the fat beast together, and a litle childe shall leade them.
The Bishop’s Bible (1568)
The Woolfe shall dwell with the Lambe, and the Leoparde shall lye downe by the Goate: Bullockes, Lions, and cattell, shall kepe company together, so that a litle chylde shall leade them.
Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
The shal ye wolfe dwel with the labe, and the leoparde shal lye downe by the gote. Bullokes, lyons and catel shal kepe company together, so that a litle childe shal dryue them forth.
The Wycliffe Bible (1395)
A wolf schal dwelle with a lombe, and a parde schal reste with a kide; a calf, and a lioun, and a scheep schulen dwelle togidere, and a litil child schal dryue hem.
And here are Bible commentaries from the top theologians of the 16th-19th century, who all speak of the wolf.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible 19th century
The wolf. By nature the wolf preys upon the lamb, and the leopard upon the kid, and the adder is venomous, and the bear, and the cow, and the lion, and the ox, cannot live together.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible Early 19th century
The wolf also shall, etc. “Then shall the wolf,” etc. – The idea of the renewal of the golden age, as it is called, is much the same in the Oriental writers with that of the Greeks and Romans: – the wild beasts grow tame; serpents and poisonous herbs become harmless; all is peace and harmony, plenty and happiness: –
Geneva Bible Footnotes 16th century
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.
John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible 18th century
And the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, This, and the three following verses Isa 11:7, describe the peaceableness of the Messiah’s kingdom; and which the Targum introduces in this manner,
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible 17th century
Ver. 6. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, &c.; the creatures shall be restored to that state of innocency in which they were before the fall of man.
These Bibles and commentaries did not get changed. People associate the Lion and the Lamb, because those are descriptions of Messiah. It’s a false association, that was created by Pastors, by songs, by books, etc.
They proclaim that wineskins was changed to bottles in Matthew 9:17.
“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.”
The translators of the KJV felt that the word ‘bottles’ fit the description best, as they had used bottles 10 other times and the word bottle 14 times.
Bottles: Joshua 9:4, 9:13, 1 Samuel 25:18, Job 32:19, 38:37, Jeremiah 48:12, Hosea 7:5, Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37, 5:38
Bottle: Genesis 21:14, 21:15, 21:19, Judges 4:19, 1 Samuel 1:24, 10:3, 16:20, 2 Samuel 16:1, Psalms 56:8, 119:83, Jeremiah 13:12, 19:1, 19:10, Habakkuk 2:15
“Smith’s Bible Dictionary” has been used by students of the Bible since its introduction in the 1860’s. For the word ‘bottle‘ is says:
The great leathern bottles are made of the skin of a he-goat, and the small ones, that serve instead of a bottle of water on the road, are made of a kids skin. The effect of external heat upon a skin bottle is indicated in ( Psalms 119:83 ) “a bottle in the smoke,” and of expansion produced by fermentation in ( Matthew 9:17 ) “new wine in old bottles.” Vessels of metal, earthen or glassware for liquids were in use among the Greeks, Egyptians, Etruscans and Assyrians, and also no doubt among the Jews, especially in later times. Thus ( Jeremiah 19:1 ) “a potters earthen bottle.” (Bottles were made by the ancient Egyptians of alabaster, gold, ivory and stone. They were of most exquisite workmanship and elegant forms. Tear-bottles were small urns of glass or pottery, made to contain the tears of mourners at funerals, and placed in the sepulchres at Rome and in Palestine. In some ancient tombs they are found in great numbers. ( Psalms 56:8 ) refers to this custom.–ED.)
The following esteemed theologians who wrote King James Bible commentaries during the 17th-19th centuries, all describe the use of the word ‘bottles’.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the New and Old Testaments.
John Calvin’s Commentaries.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.
Commentary from the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible.
John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.
Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary.
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible.
John Wesley’s Bible Notes.
Every modern Bible uses the word bottles, instead of wineskins as used in the King James.
Most pastors do not use the King James due to archaic language, so they no doubt have repeatedly used the word wineskins, which created the association in people’s minds.
They proclaim that the word ‘tires‘ was inserted into Ezekiel 24:23
“And your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your feet: ye shall not mourn nor weep; but ye shall pine away for your iniquities, and mourn one toward another.”
“Smith’s Bible Dictionary” has been used by students of the Bible since its introduction in the 1860′. For the word ‘tire‘ it says:
an old English word for headdress. It was an ornamental headdress worn on festive occasions, ( Ezekiel 24:17 Ezekiel 24:23 ) and perhaps, as some suppose, also an ornament for the neck worn by both women, ( Isaiah 3:18 ) and men, and even on the necks of camels. ( Judges 8:21 Judges 8:26 )
John Gill, a biblical scholar in the 18th century, wrote a whole Bible commentary on the King James called John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible. For Ezekiel 24:23 he confirms that is says tires.
“And your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your feet. As will be necessary while travelling, and when carrying captive to a foreign country, as now will be their case:“
It’s not talking about car tires, but an ornamental headdress that people wore on their head.
They proclaim that Messiah has been changed from being the ‘cornerstone‘ to the ‘head of the corner‘.
Once again, it’s just ignorance of other Scriptures which declare that Messiah is the cornerstone, which causes them to believe that 1 Peter 2:7 has been changed.
which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
In the previous verse, 1 Peter 2:6, Peter declares that Messiah is the corner stone.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
The Scriptures still declared that Messiah is the cornerstone.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Matthew 21:42
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: Mark 12:10
And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Luke 20:17
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Acts 4:11
For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. Acts 26:26
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Ephesians 2:20
1 Peter 2:7 was not changed. Peter had just provided another way to say it, as he had already said ‘corner stone’ in the previous verse.
They proclaim that Luke 17:34-35 said ‘two people’ would be in the same bed, not two men.
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
The context of the passage is not about Messiah teaching against sexual perversion. He was simply naming times when two people would be together, in similar circumstances; one taken, one not.
In our privileged world we think that the only reason two men would be in the same bed is for sexual perversion. Go live in a poor country and you will see that they sleep in the same bed. In a situation where many people have to live in the same house, should a man and woman who aren’t married sleep in the same bed? No! The men should sleep in the same bed, to ‘prevent‘ sexual problems.
They proclaim that Luke 17:35 used to say that two women were grinding at the mill, but now are just grinding, which they say is a perversion.
Luke 17:35 never had the word mill, but Matthew 24:41 does, “Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
Just another case of people not doing their homework to see that one Gospel has the word mill, thus the association; which they think has been changed in Luke. The word mill was never in Luke, so nothing has been changed.
The two women ground together because it took both of them to operate the hand mill, as one could not do it alone.
People proclaim that Exodus 13:12 used to say ‘womb’, but now says ‘matrix’.
“That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’S.”
They are thinking of Exodus 13:2, which says “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.“
So it’s just a matter of confusion between the two verses, which have never changed.
They claim that Peanuts writer Charles M. Schulz’s name used to be Schultz.
I grew up loving Snoopy! His name was never Schultz, that is just an association that people have because that name is more common. People hear Schulz and just assume that it’s spelled Schultz.
Don’t you think that his family would have noticed the name change and said something?
Does it really seem plausible that CERN changed every newspaper that was ever printed which featured his comic strip? And all of the merchandise was changed too? I think not!
Here are links to images of Charles Schulz’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Charles M. Schulz Highland Arena on Snelling Avenue and Ford Parkway in Saint Paul, Minnesota. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Charles_M._Schulz_Highland_Arena.JPG
And his Congressional Gold Medal
Here is a testimony from Ryan James who had originally proclaimed that the Mandela Effect was true. He follows it with proofs that it is not true.
I’m burdened to share with you what all I’ve learned since posting about the Mandela Effect last Saturday night. I must say again that I’m terribly sorry for posting about this without examining it further. Like many, I was beyond shocked to see a Scripture that I had known for years was not the way I thought it was in the KJV Bible. I felt like a spell had been cast or somehow history was changed.
After further examination, time with God, and fellowship with trusted brethren, I must say that I do believe this is all a demonic PSYOP to make many question God’s Holy Word, question their sanity, and also to discredit the truth movement.
What they have done is they took many things that the masses thought were true and used it against us to make us think it actually was and that we are somehow living in another reality.
I’m going to debunk each and every example that I posted with hopes that the ones that still believe in this will not give into this deception any longer. This is deep psychological warfare and we need to be aware of Satan’s devices.
Example 1 Debunked- Matthew 7:1 is a verse that many, including myself thought was, “Judge not, lest ye be judged..” and the KJV states that it’s “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Now, to begin with, the meaning is the exact same. If Satan was going to try to change God’s Word, he wouldn’t change a verse to mean the exact same thing. It just doesn’t make sense. Yes, the serpent is subtle, but his changes would effect the meaning of a verse or passage. When Paul Washer quoted Judge not, lest ye be judged…”, he wasn’t quoting it from his Bible. It he was, then yes, RED FLAG. But that’s not the case. You can go online and see time and time again that Matthew 7:1 in the KJV has always been “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Many people, including myself thought that “lest ye be judged” came from the KJV because it’s Old English or Shakespearean if you will, but it did not. The Orthodox Jewish Bible does state the misquote of Matthew 7:1 the way we thought it was. When people repeat things over and over, you will in fact believe it is true. It never came out of the KJV from what I can gather, it’s just highly misquoted.
Example 2 Debunked- Matthew 9:17 has the word “bottles” instead of “wineskins.” Again, this doesn’t change the meaning of this verse the slightest bit. It seems as though every other version of the Bible says “wineskins” and it’s been repeated and preached so much that there’s no reason to believe it doesn’t say “wineskins.” Apparently the translators of the KJV thought “bottles” fit the Scriptures best as in comparison to “wineskins.” You can go on You Tube and see for yourself many preachers reading “bottles” out of the KJV. God’s Word will always stand. If changes are made to the Bible, scholars of the Word of God would gather and have the correct one printed in days.
Example 3 Debunked- “Sex and the City” used to be “Sex in the City.” Not true. Although, “Sex in the City” makes much more sense, it’s been misspoken time and time again, even in newspaper articles and promotions. It’s always been “Sex and the City.” Subconsciously, “Sex in the City” sounds much better. Our memories are still in tact guys. You want to know the truth? Call up the producers or cast members or die hard fans.
Example 4 Debunked- Mr. Rogers Neighborhood Theme Song “It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood” is a highly misquoted song lyric. Many say, “It’s a beautiful day in THE neighborhood” instead of “THIS.” It’s been repeated wrong in movies, TV shows, and because “the” sounds better than “this” in our subconscious, we say it wrong thinking it’s the right lyric. Ask anyone that worked on the show. It’s always been “this” and not “the”.
Example 5 Debunked- This one freaked me out a bit and it’s the fact the movie “Interview with the Vampire” is misquoted often as “Interview with A Vampire.” It’s another one of those things that makes much more sense in our subconscious, so we say it thinking its correct. You can look back at old interviews and posters and promotions and it’s always been “Interview with THE Vampire.” Humans tend to say what makes sense the most. It’s been misquoted on TV and magazines and people that see that think it’s the correct title, when it’s not.
Example 6 Debunked- this one is easier to explain. The movie “Snow White and the 7 dwarfs” has a famous quote, “Magic Mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of them all?” The masses believe it’s “”Mirror, Mirror on the wall” instead because if you go back to the actual children’s book of “Snow White” it’s quoted “Mirror, Mirror.” Generally, plays and musicals will go by what the book says rather than the movie itself and that’s why you hear the quote, “Mirror, Mirror on the wall” all of the time. It was actually used. Just not in the movie.
Example 7 Debunked- This one is also easily explained and it’s the fact many believe that “Berenstain Bears” used to be spelled “Berenstein Bears.” Not true. Here’s why. The publishers of “Berenstain Bears” didn’t sign onto many other books, plays, posters, toys, advertisements, etc. with the spelling of “Berenstein Bears.” You did actually see It spelled like you might remember it, but it wasn’t on the official books. It’s another one of those things that sounds better, so your subconscious went right along with it.
Example 8 Debunked- “Looney Tunes” is not “Looney Toons” although it looks so much better. It’s yet another subconscious mind trick. “Toons” is short for “cartoon”, so of course you would think its “Toons” and not “Tunes”. Not the case. You may have thought it was “Toons” because there were shows like “Tiny Toons Adventures” that had it spelled the other way.
Example 9 Debunked- This one got me pretty good. It’s from Star Wars Episode 5 where Darth Vader says to Luke, “No, I am your father.” It’s been repeated “Luke, I am your father” in movies, TV shows, advertisements, t-shirts, and all sorts of others things. There’s been articles about this misquote for many years. Even the biggest Star Wars fans get it wrong. It’s yet another subconscious mind trick. Someone said it, the masses caught on, and the rest is history.
Note: The original film came out in 1977 a time before the internet and everybody remembers the original line which says “Luke I am your father“. Fast forward to current times and you will find that the film has been remastered and re-release on DVD; it is on this current version that it now says “No I am your father“.
Example 10 Debunked- The TV commercial for Sara Lee goes “Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee.” But that doesn’t make sense, right? That is exactly why we think it’s “Nobody does it like Sara Lee.” It’s not correct. People have been misquoting this for dozens of years. You can just do a quick Google search and see that it’s one of the most misquoted slogans of all time. Satan knew it and he used it for his advantage.
Well guys, it’s been a tough 3-4 days for me. I barely slept Saturday evening and Sunday at work, I felt like I stepped into the Matrix. But suddenly, people like Joshua Busby and others were coming up with resources debunking mistruths and at first, I was a little upset because I was convinced it was true. But when I woke up on Monday morning, the Holy Spirit told me that this is all a lie.
I began researching and looking over God’s Word again and concluded that I had been tricked. This is the type of mind tricks that magicians and mediums will do to freak your mind out. It’s pure psychological trickery. Nobody went back in time and changed anything. God’s Word hasn’t changed. Rest easy friends.
Please, do not tie this PSYOP to other conspiracies that people in the truth movement present. It’s illogical and misleading. Most of this world is blind and deceived by indoctrination and what they see on the Tell-lie-vision and mainstream media outlets. Truthers are going to be wrong about things. We are human. It’s when truthers refuse to admit they as wrong that causes problems.
I URGE YOU GUYS WITH ALL SINCERITY >>DO NOT PUSH THIS PSYOP<< People will discredit you and shut everything you said in the past off as “conspiracy” instead of truth. I want this post to edify and reprove anyone that is still thinking the Word of God had changed. It hasn’t! It’s the SAME. I love you guys.