The Mandela Effect Debunked

by David on May 24, 2016

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.

I also like Adam Clarke Commentary, which was written in the 19th century.

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.

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.


Isaiah 11:6 has never said ‘The lion also shall dwell with the lamb’.  They are using 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.

You can validate this by looking at Bible commentaries about Isaiah 11:6, which all confirm that it says wolf.

You can validate this by Googling images of “Isaiah 11:6” and you will see memes that says ‘wolf’.  There is no way that CERN would be able to change these things.



Ryan James's photo.
Print Friendly

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

Enoch.Rock January 20, 2017 at 1:43 am

The mandela effect is real. The body is comprised of different gifts hence I can see why not all of us are experiencing these changes. None the less, the WORD is God and He does not change. However God is not the BOOK, nor is He King James , He is the content, the meaning, the message, the very essence of the words which may or may not have been written in english been through various translations, and publishing houses. God IS. And as long as God is in the mind and the heart, it really would not matter who is a scholar but who is submitted to His will. I may not ever read the bible if I’m illiterate but know Him the Truth and the Way enough to ask the Father for all things, not leaning to my own understanding. The thief on the cross is very interesting; A. He knew Jesus but he didn’t KNOW Jesus, B. He seen none of the miracles himself, C. Nor did he have a bible to read…. Here is the kicker why was he NOT a skeptic as the other man on the cross? I mean in fact he was a dead man any way, nearly twice dead…. ah, perceive.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matt 16:15-18

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt 16:20

it was revealed by God who is the WORD but yet the thief heard or seen nothing, so what made Him react in such way. No one told Him. No one heard Him.

Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began_ 2 Timothy 2:9

Its not our choice. Its been decided before we were born. Mandela Effect whatever it is, is very real. And our revelation is from God, not even the bible which in the end is merely a book. But the words as they are are living and never change which seems to be sealed on our hearts.

peace and blessings.


Sheila January 19, 2017 at 7:38 pm

“Stuff” is not defined in the source you provided:
Look for yourself. Despite “Stuff” being used in the Bible 15 times, including in Luke 17:31. (See )
I believe that they would have defined a word a vague as “stuff” if it actually was ever used in the original KJV Bible. Please give me your take on this puzzler?


David January 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm

I did not say that Smith’s Bible had every single word. All one has to do is look at the Strong’s concordance for the Hebrew and Greek word behind the English word stuff in the Bible.

Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary for the word ‘stuff’
3627. כְּלִי k@liy
כְּלִי k@liy kel-ee’
from 3615; something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon):—armour ((-bearer)), artillery, bag, carriage, + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of, X one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, + psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, + whatsoever.

Strong’s Greek Dictionary
4632. σκευος skeuos
σκευος skeuos skyoo’-os
of uncertain affinity; a vessel, implement, equipment or apparatus (literally or figuratively (specially, a wife as contributing to the usefulness of the husband)):—goods, sail, stuff, vessel.


Jules January 16, 2017 at 6:57 am

Thank you Dave. I NEARLY lost my mind with this.
This effect is what I am going to call the casablanca effect.
People always think the line is play it again Sam.
But it never has been.
The devil has put together more of these to confuse us.

The only possible change is end of halloween where Laurie says it was the bogeyman and moon raker dolly has no braces.
Others ae debunked .
As fr the bible changing its utter rubbish.
King james has always been dfferent.
I question Anthony patch who first areas this bible and quantum effect.
It’s blasphemous to say actual bibles have changed and like flat earth I think it’s is a psyop to.make truthers look and feel crazy


David January 16, 2017 at 9:56 am

Thank you for your comment Jules. I just try to the be voice of reason, pointing out flaws in the many supposed changes. Saying that printed King James Bibles actually changed is absurd to me. The enemy has created many associations in our minds, from modern Bible verses and the words of Pastors.


karl kuhle January 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm

thanks Stephanie that’s how I feel


David Dobbs January 8, 2017 at 11:57 pm

This effect is very real to me and I want to add that not all hard copy or electronic information is changed for all people. There is residual information left behind. I think it is from personal attachment.
I have hard copy proof that the stock market has changed. My logs show what I paid and sold for on all dates of transactions. If I look at stock history on line, a lot of stocks are not even close to the price I bough or sold it for in that day, week , month or even year! How can you buy a stock for $9.40 and the entire history of the stock shows it never got higher than $4.30? I would have thought it a clerical error on my part if it where only one mistake. Try over 30 and I stopped counting and felt sick and discussed.


Open Minded... January 5, 2017 at 3:09 am

If George Lucas changed it to “No , I am your father” in his many updates then that explains why as a Kid a remembered it saying “Luke, I am your father” when I was a child. I haven’t heard this elsewhere before.

Bears I cannot answer – I am from the UK.

Position of the human heart, spellings of words, disappearing places and me actually remembering that Nelson himself died in 1991 still intrigue me.

I remember having a family discussion and arguing that Nelson Mandela was dead years ago (I saw news stories on his death at the time) only to find myself bemused to find that he was alive.

“Life is like a Box of Chocolates” needs serious explanation – no mistake there.

As for “Sex and the City” it was “Sex in the City” 100% and an award show with gongs handed out by Trump and Cowell no less called it that.

Has this been dubbed over?

Also, people have perfume and other items with the original logo on it which I clearly remember as the same in regards to font and colour and size.

Did they fake this stuff and if they did how comes the logo is exactly as I remember it – I mean they can’t get inside my mind now can they?

I never watched this show but saw it advertised all the time and have a photographic memory and I remember the logo and name clear as day.

It was years ago that this first bothered me when I saw the change and thought initially – why did they rename the show. Then I thought I was going a bit mad after an internet check and then shrugged it off and just got on with my life.

Years later I find out about the Mandela effect… and this for me is the single biggest piece of evidence that something is not at all right.

Someone explain this to me?


Jynx Cat January 6, 2017 at 2:36 am

Agreed. This article unfortunately took the easiest explanations out but disregards in full our specific anchor memories of things we don’t question, but KNOW in our hearts, like the word of God. I’m blessed to know some very astout bible scholars who feel very much the opposite of this article is happening.
Regarding CERN, if more research was done into the effect you would understand that time travel is not the basis of what Mandela Effect believers are calling the CERN change. In actuality it has very little to do with time travel and much to do with quantum entanglement.

It is also asked repeatedly,
“If so and so, then why didn’t so and so notice?”
But that’s the confusion of the effect. Not everyone sees it. So they wouldn’t. I’m not claiming to know why, or what causes some people to clearly see it and some to not at all see it.

The effect is not just an attack on the Bible. Once you have studied it from religious, political, sociological, scientific and layman perspectives, you will realize changes appear in geography, land masses, historical episodes, astrology, human behavior, the human body, popular media and personal events. This effect may be caused by Satan, but this effect IS real.


LANCE December 12, 2016 at 4:57 pm

I appreciate your efforts but just because you can’t rap your head around it doesn’t make it impossible. After all you can admit to satan being involved so? The word does say that he is the “prince of this world” John 12:31,14:30,16:11.


stephanie latorres December 9, 2016 at 10:04 am


thank you for your work.

alot of people cant acept quantum effect .

i picture ppl assigned the job of gathering texts, media, ect to be changed in some wierd blk magic technoceremony. even 1800s dictionarys, books, ect.

i dont think there is a division between Christians who accept and dont accept whats happening w ME except for the capacity to keep their equilibrium in the face of some , CRAZYNESS. God made us , awesomely! We have mechanisms to protect ourselves. it’s ok,

nobody of my peeps will accept quantum effect. it is lonely, especially when i was freaking out and wanted to lean on someone, but i adjusted.

God is good. He is always in total control. We only need look to Him and He fights the battles. I dont care who doesnt believe Mandela Effect (even really obvious ones), I love you. Praise Jesus <3


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: