The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

It exists in the USA for some crazy reason. The questions were and remain: why and how?

Because Americans do not pay much attention to the rest of the world, unless they're fighting a war there.

a reply to: tweetie
Oh wow, that was weird. And made absolutely no sense. The Mandela death I remember took place in prison and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. What the hell was Bush even babbling about? I own a book with funny things Bush said. He did have a tendency to babble and make some odd gaffes.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

It exists in the USA for some crazy reason. The questions were and remain: why and how?

Because Americans do not pay much attention to the rest of the world, unless they're fighting a war there.

As a quip that's pretty funny and there is a certain sad general truth to it about many of our citizens.

But it's not entirely fair or accurate across the board. As far as fairness goes, I traveled to Asia in my youth and I have many internet friends based in other countries in various parts of Europe and found that people from other countries are just as bad about basing their perceptions of the USA and its people on horrid stereotypes from some of our most crappy pop culture elements and some of our lowest common denominators.

The reality is that the USA is geographically large and has many diverse regional subcultures and is composed of generations of immigrants from all around the world who contribute to subcultural pockets of their own cultures of origin. For example we have Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, Afghani-Americans, Indian-Americans, and all of these hyphenated Americans do continue to pay attention to the news about their countries of origin and contribute that knowledge to the broader American culture. We live in less ignorance of world affairs than ever before, and that has been true for much of my nearly 50 years of life here.

We also have many varieties of public and private schools producing graduates with a wide variety of education levels and diverse experiences and outlooks. To characterize us as any one uniform homogenous kind of people with one singular outlook and perspective is a mistake.

As I said, when it came to news about Mandela's death I WAS paying attention. It was sad news. It was big news. I was still in high school at the time so it was part of our current events. If I or other people stopped paying attention it was because we weren't expecting his resurrection. And there wasn't much news coming out of South Africa beyond a lot of conflict and strife and turnover within their government. A rise in crime there and attacks on white ranchers was and continues to be reported. But there were no more big name public figures involved, not of the stature of Nelson Mandela, so yes, other news did take precedence in the US. Not because we don't care but because the world is a pretty big place and a lot of stuff happens in it and we all have lives to lead and jobs to work at and we will tend to pay attention to that which affects us most or has something novel to grab our attention. But that is true for citizens and news agencies in other countries, too.

In a country as big as the USA, local news itself is massive and contains a lot of stories per state to keep track of. I realized that from my recent trip across the country and taking in all the news in the states I visited out west.

Do you know what this thread needs? It needs some cuteness. Not to mention humor, this woman is a comic.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

Did you ever come across this? It's a weird little "event" from 2007. Bush quickly backtracks after saying Mandela is dead. Of course, all sorts of people rushed in to echo that Bush was speaking metaphorically. Reuter's didn't seem to think so and, of course, they were attacked.

Article

Video of remark:
Now that I think about it I would love for David Oates (founder) to do a reverse speech analysis of what Bush said.

P.S. Of course, Bush has a well-known history of blurting things out and having to backtrack.

Jeez, Bush never backtracked anything, did you actually listened to what he said? From your own video:

"I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, 'now where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandela's. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place and it's hard work for them and I understand that it's hard work for them."

Bush was not talking about the 'one and only Mandela', he is talking metaphorically! He is saying that there aren't any 'Mandela type' of leaders in Iraq, just like they had in South Africa. And the article you posted confirm that when they say:

In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.

Reuters just mislead some with the title of their article.

This is a perfect example of how people with high cognition don't fall for the Mandela effect.

originally posted by: Agartha
This is a perfect example of how people with high cognition don't fall for the Mandela effect.

Also a perfect example how some people blindly believe any youtube video without even watching it!

a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

As I said, when it came to news about Mandela's death I WAS paying attention. It was sad news. It was big news. I was still in high school at the time so it was part of our current events.

Were you in High School in 1977?

a reply to: Agartha

Good points, but it was still a very awkward speech and starkly stating a well known public figure as dead was arguably a metaphor in poor taste and misleading to people who do not pay attention and could reasonably have thought the by then elderly and ailing Mandela had died. It could be easily seen as another gaffe by a president known for such sayings as putting food on your family. He sounded in that one section of video like he was saying the Mandela family was slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. The linked article clarifies it, but that section of speech, standing alone, was not well written. It sounds like the kind of murky mess I'd write.

a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

Are you suggesting GWB wasn't awkward?

a reply to: Profusion

If you didn't see the dancers is because they bet you wouldn't. The director wagered everyone would be so enthralled with the dancer they wouldn't even notice. He was right. It's the same as the bear walking through the people playing basketball.

a reply to: Profusion

It still is wineskins. Are you even attempting to research your own material?

Source

Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst

You show further ignorance as you don't even know the context of Luke 19:27. Seems like laziness on your part not to read the preceding verses. Tell me, who is it that is saying that?

I am convinced you've never actually read the bible and just found this on an ME site.

a reply to: alienDNA

Profusion is just flat out wrong. That poster isn't doing any research.

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, this has been pointed out several times complete with pictures, but the ME crowd refuses to accept that as evidence for how they could be mistaken.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Also a perfect example how some people blindly believe any youtube video without even watching it!

And that! Also this is a perfect example of confirmation bias, where things are twisted to fit their criteria.

originally posted by: SheeplFlavoredAgain
Good points, but it was still a very awkward speech and starkly stating a well known public figure as dead was arguably a metaphor in poor taste and misleading to people who do not pay attention and could reasonably have thought the by then elderly and ailing Mandela had died. It could be easily seen as another gaffe by a president known for such sayings as putting food on your family. He sounded in that one section of video like he was saying the Mandela family was slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. The linked article clarifies it, but that section of speech, standing alone, was not well written. It sounds like the kind of murky mess I'd write.

It was not poor taste, it was actually the opposite of poor taste: Bush used Mandela in that speech because he represented a leader who was able to unify his people and stop the violence. Any intelligent people should be able to understand the context of Bush's sentence, the 'Mandelas' represent leaders like Mandela was, not his family. And that is confirmed in the Reuters article that was posted.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Profusion

It still is wineskins. Are you even attempting to research your own material?

Source

Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst

You show further ignorance as you don't even know the context of Luke 19:27. Seems like laziness on your part not to read the preceding verses. Tell me, who is it that is saying that?

I am convinced you've never actually read the bible and just found this on an ME site.

How ironic is it that you're showing your ignorance by skipping the most used and trusted translation of the Bible in existence, the King James Bible (which is the one I quoted).

Matthew 9:17 King James Version (KJV)

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.
LINK

The word "wineskins" was translated as "bottles" in Matthew 9:17 in several translations other than the King James Bible:

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

Douay-Rheims Bible
Neither do they put new wine into old bottles. Otherwise the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish. But new wine they put into new bottles: and both are preserved.

Webster's Bible Translation
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.

Matthew Henry Commentary
Nor would men put new wine into old leathern bottles, which were going to decay, and would be liable to burst from the fermenting of the wine; but putting the new wine into strong, new, skin bottles, both would be preserved.

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Concordance
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runs out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
LINK

The irony of you asking me, "Are you even attempting to research your own material?" here is beyond belief.

"You show further ignorance as you don't even know the context of Luke 19:27."

What does the context of the verse have to do with what I wrote about the verse? I didn't discuss the context because that has no bearing on what I wrote or the issue that I have with the word "bottles" being used in that verse.

I want to start a thread about the following verse. I want a theologian to explain to me the science of how putting new wine into old bottles causes the bottles to break. I've never heard of such a thing. How about you?

In my old world, it was wineskins and it made perfect sense.

...

I found a theologian talking about Mathew 9:17 in the video below (at 15 min. in). He only talks about wineskins, not bottles. Using the word bottles makes NO SENSE.

www.youtube.com...

P.S. The words "old leathern bottles" being used in the Matthew Henry Commentary does make perfect sense to me. However, that doesn't help with the word "bottles" being used in the other translations.

You don't even read our own posts do you? The other scripture was the king parable that you are confused about.

And the direct translation is bottle and always has been. A better translation was wine skin as people lost context of what a bottle was back then. Hint, it wasn't glass.

You seem to know nothing about the bible but are attempting to use it to prop up the ME. The difference in translations actually further proved there is no ME.

a reply to: Profusion

originally posted by: raymundoko
The other scripture was the king parable that you are confused about.

There is no confusion on my part. I understand that that's a parable. It's a parable about what Jesus will do in the future. I actually checked that interpretation when I first found out about the 'change' to make sure I was correct. The following video has a respected Christian Biblical scholar discussing Luke 19:27 (starting at around 16:45).

Mr. Murray confirms that the parable is about God's judgment. That means that according to Christian beliefs, the parable is about Jesus' future actions. The reason I had to check it is because Jesus never said anything like that in the Bible in my previous reality. I've read and heard several others saying the same thing but that's irrelevant to what I know was previously the case for me.

When you brought up the context of Luke 19:27 I couldn't imagine what you were talking about so I read your post as it meaning you were disputing my interpretation of the context of Matthew 9:17. Sorry about that.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: raymundoko
Tell me, who is it that is saying that?

Watch the interpretation in the video above. It doesn't matter who's saying it, the parable is about the future actions of Jesus himself.

originally posted by: raymundoko
And the direct translation is bottle and always has been. A better translation was wine skin as people lost context of what a bottle was back then. Hint, it wasn't glass.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Profusion

It still is wineskins. Are you even attempting to research your own material?

Source

Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst

"And the direct translation is bottle and always has been."

"It still is wineskins."

I can't make sense out of the quotes directly above. Not to mention the fact that your statement "It still is wineskins." is a lie. I just posted six translations that use the word "bottles" rather than "wineskins."

originally posted by: raymundoko
You seem to know nothing about the bible but are attempting to use it to prop up the ME. The difference in translations actually further proved there is no ME.

I don't know anything about the use of the word "bottles" in Matthew 9:17 or Jesus saying "slay them before me" in Luke 19:27 as those things did not exist in my previous reality. I'm trying to get oriented with your reality, that's what's going on here.

In order for me to do that, I need someone who will be honest and not tell lies like "It still is wineskins." when that isn't the case in six translations of the Bible. Then you won't even admit that you're ignorant about it.

I'm sorry, I'll speak in small words and sentences.

Bottle is how it should be translated and older translations do in fact do that. Once the word bottle became synonymous with a glass container, modern translations from the last twoish centiries started using wine skins.

So what you are failing to grasp is that it's always been bottles, but it's still wine skins...don't you get that? It's just a translation issue. There is no ME. If there were an ME no translation would have wine skins. Modern Scholars prefer the term wine skin as it causes less confusion with people like you who can't comprehend the thought of liquid breaking the bottle it is in.

Do you yourself not understand how an ME works?

As far as the parable goes, of course it is a showing of what is to come. Jesus is very clear in his revelation to john that his return will be a violent one. To not understand how they go hand in hand shows you have no understanding of the bible.

a reply to: Profusion

originally posted by: raymundoko
Bottle is how it should be translated and older translations do in fact do that.

You quoted the NIV translation earlier to prove "It still is wineskins." Apparently, you were trying to prove that the word "bottles" didn't exist in any translation of Matthew 9:17? I don't know what you were trying to prove there.

originally posted by: raymundoko
So what you are failing to grasp is that it's always been bottles, but it's still wine skins...don't you get that?

I understand that now. Thanks for your help.

originally posted by: raymundoko
There is no ME.

There are two different definitions of the Mendela Effect that I know of. The second definition listed below is definitely happening.

The Mandela Effect is a theory put forth by writer and “paranormal consultant” Fiona Broome that shared false memories are in fact glimpses into parallel worlds with different timelines.
Did You Know There’s A Term For When You’re Totally Positive Something Happened Even Though It Didn’t?

"The phenomenon where a group of people discover that a global fact - one they feel they know to be true and have specific personal memories for - has apparently changed in the world around them."
Explanation for Spelling Changes of famous names and Brands..global consciousness

originally posted by: raymundoko
If there were an ME no translation would have wine skins.

That is faulty logic. There are an infinite number of ways a timeline can go (going by the first definition above). If you go by the second definition above, there are an infinite number of ways that could happen too.

originally posted by: raymundoko
As far as the parable goes, of course it is a showing of what is to come. Jesus is very clear in his revelation to john that his return will be a violent one. To not understand how they go hand in hand shows you have no understanding of the bible.

Don't you recall your quote directly below?

originally posted by: raymundoko
You don't even read our own posts do you? The other scripture was the king parable that you are confused about.

You were claiming that my interpretation of Luke 19:27 was "confused" and now you're claiming that I was correct all along?

You are confused. You think Jesus would never say such a thing. The bible is very clear on his views.

This comes down to just a knowledge issue. You obviously don't have a lot of biblical knowledge, but this one thing just doesn't seem right to you, so ME it is...

a reply to: Profusion