the Mandela Effect...

The Parson said:

Do you really think that change has no meaning? The abode 'on' earth is the abode of man and creation. 'in' the earth is more the realm of demons and even deeper in the earth, hell it's self.
Let's look at some more of those 'On' to 'In' changes, although this seems to be a minor point for you..
Genesis 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. (KJV)
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (KJV)
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (KJV)
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (KJV)
Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. (KJV) This particular verse, and the surrounding verses have just gone totally whacky! This almost was identical to Matthew 6. Only real difference being "debts" and "debtors" in Matthew, and trespasses in Luke... No More.
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (KJV)

Click to expand...

Oh I definitely believe that In vs On can change a meaning but it depends on context. Multiple sentences can be the same exact proposition, but sometimes tiny change can result in a different proposition. “The bug is on the rubber ball” is a different proposition than “The bug is in the rubber ball.” But in the verse I referenced we have a comparison between God’s will being done equally in two different places. In such a comparison In vs On is inconsequential (even if elsewhere “In the Earth” DOES have special meaning). Nobody in church is listening to that and thinking that it’s saying God’s will be done in Hell as it is in Heaven.

The Parson said:

Here's a major meaning alteration for you:
See if you think that doctrine has been totally destroyed.
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (KJV) It's my contention, with also some residue, that "since you believed" was added to this verse.

Click to expand...

Idk, there’s an awful lot of translation disputes out there, and some textual criticism issues too. This just seems like one of those cases to me, however I can’t make any kind of definitive stance because I am not familiar with those detailed textual arguments, I am happy if the jist of what is being said doesn’t look contradictory to me.

HopeInJesusOnly said:

The ME isn't only restricted to bible changes, as a reminder.

Click to expand...

Yes I know. Do you have any ME examples (Biblical or not) where you think that the proposition clearly changed, instead of just a tiny sentence change? For example, even though there is technically a difference between the propositions “Momma said life is like a box of chocolates” and “Momma said life was like a box of chocolates” the context isn’t meant to be taken that literally so it’s the same proposition. Nobody thought that Forest was saying that his mom used to believe that life was like a box of chocolates but then changed her mind and thought that it wasn’t like a box of chocolates anymore.

Well would you look at that.
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (KJV)
Things in earth, and things under the earth, both the same place. Did anybody else notice that?!?

I can relate to this lady video journaling her ME experience (not all of it, but a lot of it).

Watch "RealitySliders MandelaEffected" on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIF60H-c47c38t8A9nxWAiQ

The Parson said:

Hey, let me post a verse I just discovered this morning. How about you tell me what it's saying without relying on anyone else's opinion or commentary... You go ahead and tell me that this is a modern edit please.
Habakkuk 3:3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. (KJV)

Click to expand...

Not seeing any differences.

21st century KJV

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,



Complete Jewish Bible

10 that in honor of the name given Yeshua,
every knee will bow —
in heaven, on earth and under the earth —


douay rheims 1899

10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:


AKJV

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

The Parson said:

Well would you look at that.
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (KJV)
Things in earth, and things under the earth, both the same place. Did anybody else notice that?!?

Click to expand...

I’m no hermeneutical guru by any means but wouldn’t this actually go against your previous point? You were drawing a distinction between On and In, but the context in this verse actually supports On and In being synonymous with each other not different (both equally distinct from Under). We need to look at concept vs concept not translated English word vs translated English word. There are many translations because putting Hebrew or Greek into English has no 100% airtight translation. So in some contexts an English On vs an English In is of no significance to the concepts.

These are different contexts, one is a two tier comparison between God’s will on Earth and Heaven, whereas the other is a three tier description of Heaven, Earth, and another 3rd realm. I would agree with you that something was fishy if it said “Thy will be done Under Earth as it is in Heaven” (I would agree that the proposition changed)

Timtofly said:

Not seeing any differences.

Click to expand...

Really, Did God really come from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran???

Jok said:

I’m no hermeneutical guru by any means but wouldn’t this actually go against your previous point? You were drawing a distinction between On and In, but the context in this verse actually supports On and In being synonymous with each other not different (both equally distinct from Under). We need to look at concept vs concept not translated English word vs translated English word. There are many translations because putting Hebrew or Greek into English has no 100% airtight translation. So in some contexts an English On vs an English In is of no significance to the concepts.

These are different contexts, one is a two tier comparison between God’s will on Earth and Heaven, whereas the other is a three tier description of Heaven, Earth, and another 3rd realm. I would agree with you that something was fishy if it said “Thy will be done Under Earth as it is in Heaven” (I would agree that the proposition changed)

Click to expand...

Who said I was even dealing with hermeneutics? This is a direct change to what the word used to say. It's not an interpretation thingy...

Oh, alrighty then. Let's deal with a bit of evidence from my Baptist brethren from 1921.

This is the Northern Baptist Convention newsletter with an exert from one of the articles. Take a look at what it says: (please expand it, and read it)

Article 13 says: “There is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power, the prince of the power of the air. . . . He shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and shall be tormented day and night forever.” The Moody Bible Institute accepting the statement of Christian faith set forth by the International Prophetic Conference has no reference to the personal devil. These are not Baptist institutions and yet they can disagree. I speak for myself. I accept neither statement. I am a Baptist. Tell me plainly what you propose to do to me. I and my Christian brothers and sisters believe what Christ said : “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Will you harm us because we will follow truth? Kalamazoo, Mich.

Click to expand...

They used the King James, that's evident from reading this newsletter. Yet the exact quote can't be found in any English language bible anywhere. As of today, the verse reads "the truth shall MAKE you free, not SET you free. You don't find that in the least bit Odd???
________________________________
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
________________________________
This verse in 'it’s original form' was the basis for the song, “He Set Me Free” by the song writer, Albert E. Brumley in 1939.

Oh, here's a little bit more residue if you care to look at it. All of these are the authorized version (KJV) I believe.

Jok said:

Idk, there’s an awful lot of translation disputes out there, and some textual criticism issues too.

Click to expand...

Hey, now here's a thought. Do you think maybe this could be one of the things blinding people to the actual conundrum? They've disputed the different versions for so long, they can't recognize what's really happening? I mean the supernatural bible changes that I'm trying my best to point out.

The Parson said:

Really, Did God really come from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran???

Click to expand...

Are you saying that God did not come from Palestine to the United States? It is a figure of speech about God changing location on earth as He blesses and uses whom He pleases.

The Parson said:

Oh, alrighty then. Let's deal with a bit of evidence from my Baptist brethren from 1921.

This is the Northern Baptist Convention newsletter with an exert from one of the articles. Take a look at what it says: (please expand it, and read it)
They used the King James, that's evident from reading this newsletter. Yet the exact quote can't be found in any English language bible anywhere. As of today, the verse reads "the truth shall MAKE you free, not SET you free. You don't find that in the least bit Odd???
________________________________
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
________________________________
This verse in 'it’s original form' was the basis for the song, “He Set Me Free” by the song writer, Albert E. Brumley in 1939.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Reformed theology has set in. The elect are made free. It is no longer all are set free. There is no more a choice to be set free or reject being set free.

Timtofly said:

Are you saying that God did not come from Palestine to the United States? It is a figure of speech about God changing location on earth as He blesses and uses whom He pleases.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the wording was defiantly different.

Timtofly said:

Sounds like Reformed theology has set in. The elect are made free. It is no longer all are set free. There is no more a choice to be set free or reject being set free.

Click to expand...

Now your starting to make sense of it Tim. I like the name by the way Tim. You and I share it...

The Parson said:

Now your starting to make sense of it Tim. I like the name by the way Tim. You and I share it...

Click to expand...

Timothy means one who honors God.
Always tried to live up to that name.

Timtofly said:

Timothy means one who honors God.
Always tried to live up to that name.

Click to expand...

Me too my friend.

The Parson said:

Who said I was even dealing with hermeneutics? This is a direct change to what the word used to say. It's not an interpretation thingy...

Click to expand...

Yeah I know, I don’t believe ME but I was just asking a follow up question to the belief in ME (if propositions ever change or just wording) and it landed us into a hermeneutic disagreement. Didn’t mean to get steered into that, that’s why I asked for even a non-Biblical example if there was one.

The Parson said:

Hey, now here's a thought. Do you think maybe this could be one of the things blinding people to the actual conundrum?

Click to expand...

We will hit a brick wall pretty fast since you are KJ only, I don’t believe that there is a conundrum. The whole point of Bible studies, and consulting Hebrew & Greek explanations, and comparative religion & cultural studies, etc, is to go deeper than just reading an English Bible translation. Decisions have to be made for any English translation because there is no perfect way to do it (hence the benefit of Bible studies), if you want a deeper understanding you’re supposed to get behind the text anyway, even a lot of laypersons do Bible studies to go deeper than an unaided reading of an English translation. And going back to what I said earlier, even if we do have extreme laypersons who do nothing but read the Bible, none of them are walking away from their reading saying to themselves “I can’t believe it says Thy will be done in Hell as it is in Heaven“, or thinking that it was talking about demons. So there simply is no deception taking place for both the straight reader of the text, or the person who goes deeper.

The Parson said:

They've disputed the different versions for so long, they can't recognize what's really happening?

Click to expand...

Interpretation disputes have always been the case since day one, way before there was a King James Bible.

The Parson said:

I mean the supernatural bible changes that I'm trying my best to point out.

Click to expand...

Prophetic interpretations are more speculative than other genres, I’m not seeing it. ME also claims that absolutely everything changes, so to be consistent you would also need to call all of reality supernatural too.

The Parson said:

Forgive me if this seems unfeeling. I guess it's one of the frustrations I've had with what I'm seeing happening to the word... If you've spent any time in the word, you're just as blind as a bat to what's happening.

This was prophesied. You just refuse to see that Daniel 7:25 could be happening now. Or that Amos 8:11-12 is for today. Why? Maybe because you just don't want to see it.
I would suppose that the Psalmist has always compared God to a drunk man waking up out of His drunken stupor:
Psalms 78:65 Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. (KJV)
Or wisdom can't be found in a woman:
Ecclesiastes 7:28 Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. (KJV)
Or money is the answer to everything:
Ecclesiastes 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things. (KJV)
Or there is no God:
Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (KJV)
Isaiah 45:14 Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God. (KJV)
Or fathers can nurse babies:
Isaiah 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. (KJV)
Or that God has been called a deceiver in the scriptures:
Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. (KJV)
Or that wineskins was never in the King James:
Mark 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. (KJV)
Luke 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. (KJV)
Or that the songs about God having His eye on the sparrow needs to be changed to ravens:
Luke 12:24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? (KJV)
Or that we needed to be set free from sin, and not made (created) to be free from sin:
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (KJV)
Or all Israel is going to be saved... All, really???
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (KJV)
Or that Paul said it's OK to listen to another Gospel, or receive the spirit of another Gospel! Yeah, go ahead and bear with that person:
2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (KJV)
Or that the "Holy of Holies" was never in the King James bible:
Hebrews 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; (KJV)

And this is but a fraction of the changes, and the spirit of anti-christ is right in the middle of it.

Look, my degree is in Biblical studies. I've been a King James defender and a Christian apologist for 25 years. I've answered biblical questions to congregations, and online since 1995. I've been a pastor since 1999. Please don't tell me I'm delusional. I'm not... Please don't tell me I'm misremembering, I'm not. I'm a blood bought, born again Christian. A blood bought Christian who is saved to the uttermost! And I serve my Lord Jesus with all that in me is. Is that your testimony?

These changes are happening. How long have you been in the word, and do you not see any of this???

Click to expand...

Those verses have always been there. You are just taking them out of context and misunderstanding them. And to be honest it's kind of offensive people would say God's word is not by him and what he writes makes no sense, that's what atheists do. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is changed. The bible is the only thing you can trust that has not been changed. In any times of confusion, you go to the word.

WrappedUpinHisLove3 said:

The Deja Vu thing is said to be a response to anxiety or fear. A coping mechanism like dissociation or DID

Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know that. But either way, fear comes from the demonic realm too. Our real wrestle is against wickedness in higher places and it just gets more and more intense as satan knows his time is short. Does this mean the Mandela effect is real? When it comes to bible changes I say absolutely not. That is preserved by God and satan can't touch it. It is unchanged and the only trustworthy and reliable source we go to in times of confusion. But other little changes such as pop culture changes (satan's playground)? Perhaps...

Justified_By_Christ_Alone said:

Those verses have always been there. You are just taking them out of context and misunderstanding them. And to be honest it's kind of offensive people would say God's word is not by him and what he writes makes no sense, that's what atheists do. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is changed. The bible is the only thing you can trust that has not been changed. In any times of confusion, you go to the word.

Click to expand...

If I didn't realize how shocking this is to even suggest it to a blindsided audience, I'd be offended by your statement myself. But I'm not. And I'm far from being an atheist. I am a born again child of God. I know my scripture, and have the education, and decades of experience to back it up. Both as an evangelist and a pastor...

Look, all I can do is present what evidence I've found, which by the way, I've only presented a fraction of what I've found. It's your place to either except it or reject it. That's your own choice. Most likely you haven't even looked at, or considered what I'm proposing because of a blind mindset.

You're only seeing one side of me. If you would of asked me any other question concerning the scriptures, I would have gladly answered it. Or you think me incapable of understanding sound doctrine because I'm letting you folks know my concerns, and findings?