Plagiarism

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

Where did William Branham say he got his sermons?

William Branham consistently said that his sermons were supernaturally inspired:

Now, then, when we got finished with the book of the revelation of the church, what God did to those seven churches, which were then in their infancy, or their shadow, in Asia Minor. Then the Holy Spirit revealed and opened to us all the mysteries in There, of how He has brought His Church through history. And if you don’t have The Seven Church Ages on tape, it would be good if you listened to them. And soon they’ll be in book form.

Do you take the day to think up these things you’re going to say at night? It’d sure take quite a day, wouldn’t it? No, Christian, my brother, I never take one thought of what I’m going to say in the pulpit. I’ll read a Scripture somewhere. And I—I’ve made announcements many times that I would go to the pulpit, I was going to preach on a certain subject, get there, the Holy Ghost turn me right back around, make me do something else. I’ve tried it two or three times to write out notes and preach on notes. Long as I’m looking at them notes, I got my mind off of God. So I just have to go ahead and crumble them up and throw them down and just whatever He says. Sometimes I start in Genesis and wind up in Revelation, I…So I’m not very much of a—of a minister just to—to…I have to get my messages from Above.

Now, way I always find my Messages is by prayer. I’ll be sitting in prayer and something reveals to me. And I wait on it a few minutes and see if it’s right, then I feel it closer. And then sometimes I keep waiting till it breaks into a vision. But when it begins to come, and I’m satisfied it comes from God, then I go to the Scripture. See, That is, ought to be the confirmation of every spiritual thing that’s done, because the Bible is the complete revelation of Jesus Christ; see, It is His Body.

And now, in that, maybe I find a place in the Scripture that doesn’t sound just right, and I’ll wonder. I go back again to prayer. It comes again. Then I—then I begin to—to examine my Scripture.

...Then, you see, from that inspiration…. This pulpit this morning, I say, not one time has it ever been nothing but straight, the Scripture. That’s how Serpent’s Seed and all these other things come.

What is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. It is all about not telling people where you got your ideas from, particularly if you copy someone word for word. It is not necessarily about copyright violation although that could be part of it.

William Branham told his audience in his sermon on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (see below) that he “didn’t know it yet” (but was going to preach on it that morning), that he’d studied Larkin’s writings BUT DIDN’T AGREE WITH THEM and that what they were going to hear was going to come from a revelation that William Branham was trusting GOD to give him. This is how William Branham lifted himself up to become the “messenger of God” of our age.

And this is why we feel it so important to compare what Larkin and others wrote side by side with what William Branham said. If Branham had preached on these subjects saying, “I’ve been reading these books, and I agree with what Clarence Larkin has written”, we would have no argument with him. But he didn’t.

William Branham took direct quotes from Clarence Larkin (and others) and used them to deceive his audiences into thinking that he had a special rapport with God, and that God was using him to reveal things that no one had seen before. In fact, he told his followers that although he HAD read Larkin’s books (among others), “they didn’t come out right”, thus saying that he wasn’t going to preach what Larkin had written. He lied to his listeners, and that’s just not right.

William Branham's plagiarism was first brought to our attention by Nathan Rivera in his ebook entitled "A Logical Refutation of Branham's Message" which is available for free download.

What does God think about plagiarism?

Plagiarism is a Biblical Sin

William Branham said he received his inspiration regarding the seven church ages and seven seals from God and not from other men:

Now, then, when we got finished with the book of the revelation of the church, what God did to those seven churches, which were then in their infancy, or their shadow, in Asia Minor. Then the Holy Spirit revealed and opened to us all the mysteries in There, of how He has brought His Church through history. And if you don’t have The Seven Church Ages on tape, it would be good if you listened to them. And soon they’ll be in book form.

Now I want to make this real clear. Every time, every time that these Seals has come to the place; everything that I ever believed on Them, and has read of other people, has been contrary to what come to me in the room.

But as you will see below, he received most of it from the books of Clarence Larkin, Charles Taze Russell, and others.

The Bible records what the Lord thinks of prophets who plagiarize from each other, and say it is a word from the Lord.

Jeremiah 23:30

KJV: Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

NET: So I, the LORD, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who steal messages from one another that they claim are from me.

GNT: I am against those prophets who take each other’s words and proclaim them as my message.

NLT: “Therefore,” says the LORD, “I am against these prophets who steal messages from each other and claim they are from me.

NIV: “Therefore,” declares the LORD, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me.

Q&A:Plagiarism Paul quotes secular poets in the Bible. Is this plagiarism?

It is clear that God is against plagiarism when a person says they received their inspiration from God, when in fact they received it from another person.

Plagiarism is ethically wrong

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary provides the following meaning to "plagiarize":

pla•gia•rize \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\ verb -rized; -riz•ing [plagiary]

• verb transitive 1716: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another’s production) without crediting the source
• verb intransitive: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source—pla•gia•riz•er noun

If William Branham has simply said "I read this information in Clarence Larkin's book", then he would not have been guilty of plagiarism. But he didn't. Instead he said that he received it by divine revelation. He said that God gave it to him, which was a lie. He got the information directly from Clarence Larkin and others. Below are specific examples of plagiarism in William Branham's ministry. We have also addressed a few questions about plagiarism in the Bible which can be found by clicking here.

Examples of William Branham's plagiarism

Compare the words of William Branham to the following people:

Clarence Larkin

Clarence Larkin

Clarence Larkin (1850-1924) was American Baptist pastor, Bible teacher and author whose writings on Dispensationalism had a great impact on modern dispensational thinking. While William Branham only mentions Clarence Larkin twice in all his recorded sermons, he drew heavily from him but never gave Larkin the credit for these teachings.

Message preachers point out that William Branham did mention Larkin but the first time he mentioned Larkin was over 7 months after preaching the seven church age series which were almost totally plagiarized from Larkin. And the second mention of Larkin was again over seven months after preaching the seven seals series which again were consistently plagiarized from Larkin.. Here are the two references to Larkin that William Branham makes:

I've been reading Dr. Larkin's book, Dr. Smith's book, Dr. Scofield's notes, different commentaries from men everywhere, and yet I cannot put theirs together to make it come out right. (July 30, 1961, Sermon: Gabriel's Instructions to Daniel)

And I had read Mr. Larkin. I had read, oh, so many different ones, of their commentaries on This. But, somehow or other'n, I thought I had a--a little view of it, myself, that might be of places different. ...But then just before it happened, I was given a vision, which is on tape, as you all know, Sirs, What Time Is It? that I should go to Tucson, Arizona. ...There where the Angel of the Lord met us, and the Bible become a new Bible. There It opened up and revealed all the things that the reformers and things had left out. It was the complete revelation of Jesus Christ, altogether new to us, but perfectly exactly with the Scripture. That was the Word which has always been. I was so inspired and directed. (July 19, 1964, The Feast of the Trumpets)

In these above quotes, William Branham says that he doesn't agree with Clarence Larkin or other commentaries. This gives the impression that the doctrine he preached was his own original ideas or lessons he received directly from the Angel (and not from anywhere else). But did he? Let's take a close look and compare what William Branham says to Clarence Larkin's books.

Plagiarism in the Patmos Vision

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
You believe He's a Judge? Let's read Saint John 5:22, right quick, we'll see whether He's a Judge or not. Saint John 5:22: For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son: Now, we're going to read the sevenfold glory of His Person... His head and His hair was white like wool. Now, it does not mean that He was aged that did this. That wasn't the reason of it. He wasn't aged to do this. He was... It was because of His experience and qualification and His wisdom. Because He's eternal, and eternal cannot age. All right, now Daniel 7:9... "White hair..." All... Anybody knows that's the old judges in ancient days, like English judges used to wear a snow white wig. How many remembers that? Old ancient judges wore a white wig because they was... And here He is, showing again that John's over in the Lord's day; he saw Him as the Judge (Amen.), not as Priest, not as King, not as Prophet, but as Judge. The Father, Saint John 5: 22, committed all judgment to Him. And He's Judge now, come to judge the nations. Oh, for that day when you see Him like that. His hair was as white as snow; Daniel saw Him coming to the Ancient of days. Watch Him blend these two together. All right. THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	SEVENFOLD GLORY OF HIS PERSON 1. HIS “HEAD AND HIS HAIR. His “Head” and “Hair” were “WHITE LIKE WOOL,” as “WHITE AS SNOW.” Here there is a correspondence to the “Snow White Wig” worn by English judges. This description of Christ reminds us of Daniel’s vision of the “ANCIENT OF DAYS,” “whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the PURE WOOL.” Dan. 7:9. Daniel refers three times to the “Ancient Of Days.” In Chap. 7:13, he distinguishes between the “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days,” but in verses 9 and 22 he associates the “Ancient of Days,” with a “Throne of Judgment,” and as God the Father has committed all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), and the Father and the Son are one, the title “Ancient Of Days” is used interchangeably. And as the title “Ancient of Days” is applied to the “Son of Man” (Christ) at the time He assumes the Judgeship (Dan. 7:9–10)... The “White Hair” of the Son of Man refers to His ANTIQUITY, to His patriarchal dignity, not that His hair was made white by age, for the Eternal never grows old, but it bespeaks wisdom and experience, and the venerableness of His character. (Larkin, C. 1919. The Book of Revelation: A Study of the Last Prophetic Book of Holy Scripture (11–12). Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate: Philadelphia, PA)
His hair, and His eyes once dimmed with human tears, yet I want you to notice something about those eyes. When He was on earth, yet they were dimmed with tears like a man, for He cried at the grave of Lazarus... But yet behind that humanity, He had something behind that could look right down into the heart of a man and know all about him. THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	2. HIS EYES. “His Eyes were a FLAME OF FIRE.” Those eyes that had often been dimmed with human tears, and that wept at the grave of Lazarus, are here pictured as burning with an “OMNISCIENT FLAME.” How often when on the earth those eyes read the innermost thoughts of men, and even soldiers quailed before His soul penetrating gaze, so when He sits as the Judge of men all things will be NAKED and OPEN before Him. (Larkin, C. 1919. The Book of Revelation: A Study of the Last Prophetic Book of Holy Scripture (11–12). Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate: Philadelphia, PA)
Brass also represents Divine judgment at the altar where the sacrifice was killed, brazen altar. Killed... The very foundations was brass, the judgment. He tread the winepress of the fierceness of God and took our judgment upon Him. Turn to Revelations 19:15, just a minute; let's see what He did. Someday those brass feet of justice (Glory.), when He comes as Judge, He'll tread the antichrist, and all of His enemies. THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	3. HIS FEET. “His Feet like unto fine BRASS, as if they BURNED IN A FURNACE.” In that day those feet that trod the Via Dolorosa of suffering will be like unto INCANDESCENT BRASS, that shall tread and crush Antichrist and Satan when He comes to “Tread the WINE-PRESS of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Rev. 19:15. (Larkin, C. 1919. The Book of Revelation: A Study of the Last Prophetic Book of Holy Scripture (11–12). Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate: Philadelphia, PA)
The voice of many waters coming forth from this One that looked like the Son of man, many waters. ...the great falls just below you, the great cataracts that'll take you to your eternal doom. Oh, what will that be on that day when that voice thunders out of many waters, many church ages forming out? ...Now, you drifting soul, you poor drifter that's drifting over that great cataract yonder, be careful. It'll be a horrible thing when you know that there's no saving for you then. You can't get saved then; you know your doom lays right before you. When you know within a few minutes you'll hear that voice speak out, "Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity, into everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels." You'll know when you hear that great falls a-roaring of those voices of those meetings, while you're passing out of this. Oh, what a horrible thing, what a nightmare. What is any sweeter to a man that's anchored, laying back under the evergreen tree, to hear the rippling brook? THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	4. HIS VOICE. “His Voice as the SOUND OF MANY WATERS.” There is nothing more melodious or musical than the babbling brook, or more thunderous than the rush of the cataract over the falls, and there is nothing more fearful to the criminal than the words of the Judge as he passes sentence; but how terrifying will be the sentence when with a strong voice the Son of Man shall say in the Judgment Day, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.” Matt. 25:41. (Larkin, C. 1919. The Book of Revelation: A Study of the Last Prophetic Book of Holy Scripture (11–12). Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate: Philadelphia, PA)
The seven stars are seven angels... (or seven messengers, seven ministers)... of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks that thou sawest are the seven churches. And, remember, the seven stars was in His right hand. Just think, they were drawing their current, their Light from Him. They were completely under His control in His right hand. Oh. Every true servant of God is the same way. Held in... Who can harm them? Who can harm them? THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	5. HIS HAND. “In His Right Hand SEVEN STARS.” We are told in verse 20, that the “Seven Stars” stand for the “ANGELS” of the “Seven Churches.” These “Angels” are not angelic beings but the Messengers or Ministers of the churches. What a beautiful and solemn lesson is taught here. It is that the ministers of Christ derive their power and office from Him, and that He holds them in His hand. If they are false to Him, no one can deliver them from His power, and if they are true and loyal, no one can touch or molest, or do them harm. (Larkin, C. 1919. The Book of Revelation: A Study of the Last Prophetic Book of Holy Scripture (11–12). Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate: Philadelphia, PA)
Now, do you know what the sharp two-edged sword of the Bible is? Let's just catch it so you'll know. Take Hebrews 4:2... Say, I just happened to think of something else of there. I don't know whether I wrote a Script... Get Revelations 19, just a minute. Let's get this again; I think that's right. I'm maybe... Revelations 19 about 11... The white horse rider of Revelations. Notice the sword. "Out of His mouth goes a sharp two-edged sword," the Word. And finally, by His Word, when It's made manifest to all the sons of God, He'll tramp every nation down with His Word, by this sharp sword. Look here what happened, as we get it. And... his right hand... and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenances was like the sun shining in its strength. "A sharp two-edged sword." What was going from the mouth of this Person? The Word of God. It's a sharp two-edged sword. THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	6. HIS MOUTH. “Out of His Mouth went a SHARP TWO-EDGED SWORD.” While the “Sword of the Spirit” is the “Word of God” (Eph. 6:17), and the “Word of God” is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any TWO-EDGED SWORD, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (the body), (Heb. 4:12), that is not the sword meant here. The “Sword of the Spirit” is the Holy Spirit’s SWORD, and He alone wields it. The sword meant here is the Sword of the Son of Man (Christ), and it is the “SWORD OF JUSTICE,” for the Son of Man, out of whose mouth this sword comes, is the “White Horse Rider” of Rev. 19:11–15, “out of whose mouth goeth a SHARP SWORD, that with it He should smite the nations.” And that sword, like the “Sword of the Spirit” will be TWO-EDGED also, for the protection of His people, and the destruction of His enemies. This is still further proof that John’s vision of Christ was as He shall appear in the “DAY OF THE LORD.” (Larkin, C. 1919. The Book of Revelation: A Study of the Last Prophetic Book of Holy Scripture (11–12). Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate: Philadelphia, PA)
...and his countenances was like the sun shining in its strength. If you turn to, let's see, Matthew 17. Let's just get it right here while we're at it; so we're just passing it through, and many of those people that are taking it, let's--or writing it down, we'll just let them read it so that we'll know. Matthew 17, all right. ...And was transfigured before them: and "His face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. He was transformed. What did He do? Passed Hisself into transformation, over into His coming day. All right. "Sun shining in its strength," His countenances, transformed, transfigured. Now, another thing, in Revelations 21:23, if you want to put it down, in the New Jerusalem (21:23), He is the Lamb that's in the city that's the Light thereof shining; for they needed no light in the city; the sun shall not rise in it, because the Lamb which is in the midst of the city shall be the Light thereof. And the nations that's saved shall walk in the Light of the Lamb. ...the Sun of righteousness. Let's go to Malachi, Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament, Malachi the 4th chapter. THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E	7. HIS COUNTENANCE. “His Countenance was as the SUN SHINETH IN HIS STRENGTH.” This recalls to our memory His appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration when “His Face did shine AS THE SUN,” Matt. 17:2. And we read of the New Jerusalem that the inhabitants thereof have no need of the SUN, for the LAMB is the Light thereof. Rev. 21:23. And when we recall that the Prophet Malachi tells us that when Jesus comes back He will be the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (Malachi 4:2), we see that John’s vision of the Son of Man was as He shall appear at the Second Stage of His Return, the “Revelation.” Thus we have in John’s “Seven-Fold” description of the person of the “Glorified Son of Man” circumstantial or indirect evidence that John saw his vision of the Son of Man, not on a Sabbath Day (or the “Lord’s Day” as we now call it), but was projected by the Holy Spirit forward into the “Day of the Lord” and saw Him as He will appear then as the Judge, and the coming “SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Plagiarism in the Church Ages

Main article: The Seven Churches Ages

NOTE: William Branham's book "An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages" (which is commonly referred to as the "Church Age Book" or the CAB) contains all of the plagiarism noted in his sermon series on the Seven Church Ages which were delivered in December, 1960. Most of the references in this article relating to the church ages are primarily to the actual sermons and not to the CAB. While the CAB contains all of the plagiarized text referred to here, some have said that the plagiarism in the CAB was the direct result of the involvement of Lee Vayle and, therefore, cannot be attributed to William Branham himself. The quotes contained below, however, clearly show that William Branham was the one that plagiarized Clarence Larkin's works.

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Now, the first church age started about A.D. 53, when Paul established the church in--in Ephesus... and the church age lapped over to 170. THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	The character of the Church at Ephesus is a fair outline of the Church Period from A. D. 70 to A. D. 170.
...the very name "Ephesus" means "let go, relax, backslidden," called by God, "The backslidden church." THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	Its character is seen in its very name, for Ephesus means to “let go,” “to relax.” It had become a Backslidden Church.
...then started in the Smyrna Church Age which lasted from A.D. 170 until A.D. 312. THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	...the Smyrna Church...extended from A. D. 170 to Constantine A. D. 312.
Then come in the Pergamos Church Age, and the Pergamos Church Age begin at 312 and lasted till A.D. 606. THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	...Pergamos...extends from the accession of Constantine, A. D. 312 to A. D. 606, when Boniface III was crowned “Universal Bishop.”
And now in the early years, or just before this taken place (a few years), Satan’s seat built the great… I guess you would call him a prie-… king-priest of the Chaldeans. The hierarchy of Babylon changed his seat when the Persians was pursuing him, and he left Babylon. His name was A-t-t-a-l-u-s, Attalus, the great king-priest of Babylon. When the Persians came in and taking over Babylon, running out the Chaldeans; Attalus, their king-priest, fled and took his seat at Pergamos. “The Satan’s seat is where you are dwelling.” Get it? Now, that’s why I go back to pick up this history out of the church history, finding where…to what taken place when He said, “You are dwelling where Satan’s seat is.” I thought, “Well, where could that be, a certain thing, ‘Satan’s seat’?” Then I find out that this great king, after he was fleeing from the conquering Persians that taken over (according to Daniel’s vision), he came to this city of Pergamos, at Rome, and there made his headquarters. Satan shifted his headquarters from Babylon to Pergamos, where (future) he would start the new Babylon. Oh, my! Now you get the backgrounds where we’re at. All right.	In this Message Pergamos is spoken of as “Satan’s Seat.” When Attalus III, the Priest-King of the Chaldean Hierarchy, fled before the conquering Persians to Pergamos, and settled there, Satan shifted his capital from Babylon to Pergamos.
Now, in doing this, they consolidated and made the early…formed the early Catholic church, later. Then at the first great Nicene Council…When I read that, I just fell on my knees. The great Nicene Council had taken place in a.d. 325, all of them was brought together, the bishops and fathers of the Christian faith was brought together at Nicaea. That’s the reason it’s called the Nicaea Council, in a.d. 325. And about fifteen hundred delegates came to the—the—the convention, or the council, about fifteen hundred delegates, and the laity outnumbered the bishops five to one (in the delegation); but yet, through the Nicolaitanes (the cold formals) and Constantine’s politicianal plan, they out-voted the true Church and won the victory, and issued in bishops and holy order of men; taking the—the Holy Spirit from the meeting, and placing it upon bishops, cardinals, and popes, and so forth. Now, this first Nicene Council, and it was in a.d. 330…325. About fifteen hundred delegates and bishops attended the meeting, but they overruled them, in some foggy, stormy council it was. And they overruled them, and voted in that the Nicolaitanes took over, and that was to take the…all the church, and put it under a supervision of popes or—or bishops, or something; taking the power from the Church and giving it over to the bishops, that the bishops should rule the church and the only one that had anything to say about It.	And the foothold it had secured in the Church was seen in the First Great Council of the Church held at Nicaea, in A. D. 325. The Council was composed of about 1500 delegates, the laymen outnumbering the Bishops 5 to 1. It was a stormy council, full of intrigue and political methods, and from the supremacy of the “Clergy” over the “Laity” it was evident that the “Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes” had secured a strong and permanent foothold.
That’s the birthplace of post-millennium. And that’s the reason the Catholic doesn’t teach the coming of Jesus, to this day. “It’s all in the church. This is the Millennium. The church owns everything. This is it.” See, post-millennium (Oh, my!) without the return of Jesus Christ. This lasted unto the assassination of Constantine which come between 312 and—and…a.d. 312 and 606. Then Boniface III was made the universal bishop or pope over the whole universal church.	It was at this time that “Post-Millennial Views” had their origin. As the Church had become rich and powerful, it was suggested that by the union of Church and State a condition of affairs would develop that would usher in the Millennium without the return of Christ, and since some scriptural support was needed for such a doctrine, it was claimed that the Jews had been cast off “forever,” and that all the prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended for the Church. This “Period” extends from the accession of Constantine A. D. 312 to A. D. 606, when Boniface III was crowned “Universal Bishop.”
Then come in the Thyatira Church Age, and the church age of Thyatira begin at 606 and went to 1520, the dark ages. THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	The Message to the Church at Thyatira. This Period extended from A. D. 606 to the Reformation A. D. 1520.
All right, this Jezebel. Now she was a daughter of Abraham, that’s true, a princess of an idolater. At that time when the royal family, her royal family, was famed by cruel savage loyalty to Baalim. Her father was a priest of the idol of A-s-t-a-r-t-e (I don’t know how you pronounce it, I just picked it up in the history). Ahab used his strategy like Constantine. This great powerful nation laid next to Israel, so therefore…	Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, was not by birth a daughter of Abraham, but a princess of idolatrous Tyre, at a time, too, when its royal family was famed for cruel savagery and intense devotion to Baal and Astarte.
And then the Sardis Church Age begin at 1520 and lasted till 1750, the Lutheran age. THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	The “Sardis Period” extended from A. D. 1520 to about A. D. 1750.
Then from 1750, the next age come in was the Philadelphian, Wesley age; that begin at 1750 and lasted till 1906. THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	The “Philadelphia Period” covers the time between A. D. 1750 and A. D. 1900.
Now the great missionary age, brotherly love, the age of missions. Let me just name to you some of the great men (and then I just wrote their names down here): John Wesley; George Whitfie-…Whitefield, he was about 1739; Charles G. Finney; Dwight Moody; William Carey, the great missionary that went to India in 1773; David Livingstone, to South Africa. See, all those, some of those great men. Just…I got names of plenty of them here, great men that lived in that brotherly love; that, the black man, the white man, the brown man, the yellow man, all walls was broke down, and these men went out into the mission fields.	Revivals have been characteristic of the Philadelphia Period. These Revivals began with George Whitefield in A. D. 1739, followed by John Wesley, Charles G. Finney and D. L. Moody. It had set before it an “open door,” that no “man” could shut. Note that this promise was made by Him, who “hath the ‘Key of David,’ He that ‘openeth’ and no man shutteth; and ‘shutteth’ and no man openeth.” In 1793 William Carey sailed for India, where he found an “open door,” and since then the Lord has opened the door into China, Japan, Korea, India, Africa and the isles of the sea, until there is not a country in the world where the missionary cannot go.
And at 1906 the Laodicean church age set in, and I don't know when it'll end, but I predict it'll be done by 1977. I predict, not the Lord told me, but I predict it according to a vision that was showed me some years ago... THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE 60-1205	The character of the Church today is Laodicean, and as the Laodicean Period is to continue until the Church of the “New-Born” is taken out, we cannot hope for any great change until the Lord comes back.
The chilliness of the Anglican church in the days of John Wesley drove him to have meetings elsewhere, because it was cold, chilly. The chilliness of the Methodist church caused William Booth to become a red-hot salvationist. You see, God said, “If you won’t come and repent, I’ll remove the candlestick. I’ll take it out, give it to somebody else.” So when the Methodist church wouldn’t receive John Wesley’s sanctification, William Booth come right up with the Salvation Army and took her right on. That’s right. Why? They organized it! That’s exactly. Made an organization out of it, and God said, “I hate the thing!”	It was the “chilly spiritual atmosphere” of the Church of England that drove John Wesley to start those outside meetings which became so noted for their “religious fervor,” and it was the same “chilly atmosphere” of the Methodist Church that drove William Booth in turn to become a “Red-hot” Salvationist.
They have large buildings, stained glass windows, eloquent preachers, paid singers. Yes, sir.	Many of these churches have Cathedral-like buildings, stained glass windows, eloquent preachers, paid singers, large congregations.
Brother, the world won’t be converted by money. The world will be converted by the Holy Ghost; powerful preaching of the Holy Ghost and the Cross will be the only thing that’ll convert the world. God’s program is not money. It’s the Holy Ghost, that’s what God’s program is for the Laodicean Church Age or any other church age. Yes, sir. They want the Holy Ghost. Oh, they say, “We are…have gold.” It was gold, all right, but not the right kind. They had plenty of gold but not the right kind.	The trouble with the church today is that it thinks that nothing can be done without money, and that if we only had the money the world would be converted in this generation. The world is not to be converted by money, but by the Spirit of God. The trouble with the Church of Laodicea was that its “Gold” was not of the right kind.
They were nearsighted. They was looking at their big building. They were rich. They were looking at the great organization they belonged to, trying to build it up, getting more members to come in, and they didn’t miss Him.	But the Church of Laodicea was not only poor, though rich, it was blind. Or to put it more accurately—“Near-Sighted.” They could See their worldly prosperity, but were “Short-Sighted” as to heavenly things, so the Lord counseled them to anoint their eyes with “Eye-Salve.” Their merchants dealt in ointments and herbs of a high degree of healing virtue, but they possessed no salve that would restore impaired Spiritual Vision, only the Unction of the Holy One could do that.
Excluded! What was He excluded from? Now, listen, friends. If this isn’t striking! Get a picture of it, let it sink down in your heart. Our Saviour, when He was on earth, He was excluded from His Own nation. He was rejected, He was excluded. The world excluded Him and crucified Him. And now, from His Own church, He’s excluded. He isn’t wanted anywhere, have no need of Him.	This is a description of a Christless Church. Oh, the EXCLUDED CHRIST Excluded from His own nation, for they Rejected Him; excluded from the world, for it Crucified Him; excluded from His Church, for He stands outside its door Knocking for Entrance.

Plagiarism in the Breach Between the Seals and the Church Ages

What William Branham Said

What Clarence Larkin Said

Now, now, we're going to turn to the 5th chapter. Now, this is not the Seven Seals. It is the "Breach Between the Church Ages and the Seven Seals." Now, there is also a 6th chapter of... and there was a 4th chapter, rather, of Revelation, and in that it kind of revealed something that would take place after the Church going up: that the Church goes up on the 3rd chapter of Revelations and does not return until the 19th chapter of Revelations. See? Therefore, the Church misses the tribulation. I know that's contrary to--to pretty near every teacher I ever talked to, but I--I don't mean to be dis--disagreeable. I--I mean to be your brother, but I--I must teach just as I can see it. If I don't, I can't put it together. You see? And now, whether it goes up before the tribulation or after the tribulation, I want to go up with it. That's the main thing. Do you realize that the first three chapters of Revelation deals with the church in the church age? That's the tribulation period, not the church age; the church raptures and goes up at the 4th chapter of Revelation, never comes again till the 19th chapter when it comes with Jesus. That's right. That's in the tribulation period, not nothing to do with the church at all. John caught up in the 4th chapter to see things which was, which is, and which is to come. But the Church finishes at the 4th chapter, and Christ takes up the Church, caught up in the air to meet Him, and does not appear again until the 19th chapter when He comes back with--as King of king and Lord of lords with the Church. And at the same time the Church is gone, and these things don't even happen in the church age at all. That's right. They're--they're away from the church age. The Church absolutely is raptured at this time. The Church goes up in the 4th chapter of Revelation, and does not return until it comes back with its King in the 19th chapter. But these Seals here are revealing what has been, what is, and what will be. See? And now, what was to be for the church age was revealed by these Seals, and now, watch what takes it.

The word “hereafter” permits a “time space,” while the words “after these things” refer to the things that shall immediately follow the completion of the “Church Age,” as prefigured in the Messages to the Seven Churches. The Church disappears from view with the close of the third chapter and is not heard of again until the nineteenth chapter, where her marriage to the Lamb is announced. Rev. 19:7–9.

Plagiarism in the Seven Seals (click on the links below)

Main article: The Seven Seals

1. Plagiarism in the First Seal
2. Plagiarism in the Second Seal
3. Plagiarism in the Third Seal
4. Plagiarism in the Fourth Seal
5. Plagiarism in the Fifth Seal
6. Plagiarism in the Sixth Seal
7. Plagiarism in the Seventh Seal

Plagiarism in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel

In his copyrighted 1919 book, “The Book of Revelation”, after Clarence Larkin wrote about Revelation chapter 5, he then took a bit of a sidestep to discuss the Seventieth Week in the Book of Daniel. Larkin later went on to write an entirely separate book titled “The Book of Daniel” (1929), which also spoke on his ideas regarding Daniel’s 70th week and its link to the book of Revelation.

Coincidentally, that’s exactly what William Branham thought. And so, just a few weeks after he’d finished preaching on Revelation Chapter 5, he preached a series of three sermons on the 70th week of Daniel.

In his introduction to his sermon on the Seventy Weeks, William Branham stated (emphasis is ours):

If the Lord willing, this morning we're taking the subject of Daniel's Seventy of Weeks.

...The first three chapters of Revelation was the church ages. Then John was caught up in the 4th and 5th chapter and was showed things that—that was to be hereafter. Now, on the 6th chapter he drops down into the earth again to see things taking place that will go from the 6th chapter, the 1st verse, until the 19th chapter and the 21st verse.

...And it's something in the last time, a-many of the old-timers here, that I taught, I just said, "In here belongs the seventy weeks of Daniel," but I did not try to attack it to explain it. But this time, by the grace of God, I have taken upon myself to try to ask grace before God that I might bring it to the people. And in here I'm finding things that I do not know one thing about. And then I… I've been reading Dr. Larkin's book, Dr. Smith's book, Dr. Scofield's notes, different commentaries from men everywhere, and yet I cannot put theirs together to make it come out right.

...and having my trust solemnly in Jesus Christ to reveal it to me, because I do not want it to say, "I know this, and I know that." He knows my heart; He's listening at me. But I want it that I might enlighten His people. Therefore, I believe that He will give it to me. I do not know as yet, but I'm trusting Him for next Sunday, 'cause that'll be the tremendous part, as next Sunday to know and place those seventy of weeks. Each one has a different place. And when you do, you go to running them on through; they don't come out right; they don't register up right. It can't. And therefore, I—I may not be able to have it right, but I'm going to trust the Lord for it.

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Now, the prophet Daniel had been in Babylon for sixty-eight years. You who wants to run references back, and save yourself some of the time, that I’ve had to—to looking it up. Sixty-eight years! He went into captivity in b.c. 606, and when the vision came to him was—was b.c. 538. 538 from 606, leaves sixty-eight. Sixty-eight years he had been in Babylon, amongst heathens, and still had the victory. 26 Now, to lap back our Scriptures for a few moments, we find that Daniel had been in captivity for sixty-eight long years. Think of it! Now, you, and your paper and pencil, that didn’t get it this morning, may pick it up tonight. From a.d. 606 to 538. Take 538 from 606, you got sixty-eight years Daniel had been in…a captive; no church to go to, no sermons to hear, nothing. But he had some books, some scrolls, that a prophet before him had prophesied, and was—was Jeremiah.	The first verse of the chapter locates it in the “First Year” of Darius the Median, or the same year as the “Fall of Babylon,” B. C. 538. Daniel had been studying the Prophecy of Jeremiah, and learned from it that the 70 years of “Captivity” of his people were drawing to a close, for the “Captivity” began in B. C. 606, and 68 years had elapsed since then.
Now, I got some writing here that I’d like to read to you as we go by. Now: …the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem… Which, was on the 14th day of March. If any of you want to put that down, in the Hebrew you’ll find it called N-i-s-a-n, Nisan, which means “March.” The issue was given on the 14th day of March, b.c. 445, the issue went forth to build, rebuild the temple. You understand it, as you people have read the Scriptures.	The date of the “commandment” is given in Nehemiah 2:1 as the month “Nisan” in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, which was the 14th day of March, B. C. 445.
Now, now, Jesus, Messiah, rode into the city of Jerusalem, triumph, on the back of a white mule, on Palm Sunday, April the 2nd, a.d. 30. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, a.d. 30. And now, now, from b.c. 445 to a.d. 30, is exactly four hundred and seventy-five years. But, as we have already seen, that the sixty-nine weeks makes four hundred and eighty-three years. Now, there is where the trouble comes, right there. See? We’ve got only, with the marking of the Bible here, time, only four hundred and seventy-five years. And, actually, it’s four hundred and eighty-three years, a difference of eight years. Now, God can’t make it miss. If He said it would be so many days, it’s so many days. If He says it’s so much, it’s so much. So what are we going to do? Now, the b.c. 475 to a.d. 30, are Julian or astronomal years, which are three hundred and sixty-five and one-fourth day in—in each. But when we reduce them days to our prophetic calendar… Our prophetic calendar brings us to three hundred and sixty days, as we use now in the Scriptures. We have exactly four hundred and eighty-three. There it is, four hundred and eighty-three. Here we have exactly proof of the prophecy, exactly the truth. For, from the time of the going forth to build the temple, until the destroying, when they rejected Christ and killed Him in a.d. 33, when Christ was killed, is exactly four hundred and eighty-three years. Now, from the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem, was determined seven weeks, which meant forty-nine years. And forty-nine years hit it exactly. Well, from the rebuilding of the temple to the Messiah, was four hundred and thirty-eight years. So, four hundred and thir-…four hundred and thirty-four years. And four hundred and thirty-four (time), forty-nine, makes exactly four hundred and eighty-three years. It hit it on the nose, exactly to the day, from day to day. Amen! There you are. “Messiah the Prince shall come.” See? Seven times sixty-nine is four hundred and thir-…and—and eighty-four years. Exactly, it hit it on the nose. So, then, we know perfectly, we know exactly, that that Scripture is right. Here it is. But, you see, all these… When God had the antediluvian world and destroyed it by water, and changed the astronomy date; and then let the Romans come in and make up their calendar, which it hits and jumps, and so forth. And I guess, that, even in the encyclopedia where I been reading.	The day when Jesus rode in Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem as “Messiah the Prince,” was Palm Sunday, April 2, A. D. 30. Luke 19:37–40. But the time between March 14, B. C. 445, and April 2, A. D. 30, is more than 69 literal “weeks.” It is 445+30=475 years. What explanation can we give for this? We found that the time between the “commandment” to restore and build Jerusalem, and “Messiah the Prince,” was to be 69 weeks, or 69×7=483 days, or if a “day” stands for a year, 483 years. But we found that from B. C. 445 to A. D. 30 was 475 years, a difference of 8 years. How can we account for the difference? We must not forget that there are years of different lengths. The Lunar year has 354 days. The Calendar year has 360 days. The Solar year has 365 days. The Julian, or Astronomical year, has 365¼ days, and it is necessary to add one day every 4 years to the calendar. So we see that we are to use in “Prophetical Chronology” a “Calendar” year of 360 days. According to ordinary chronology, the 475 years from B. C. 445 to A. D. 30 are “Solar” years of 365 days each. Now counting the years from B. C. 445 to A. D. 30, inclusively, we have 476 solar years. Multiplying these 476 years by 365 (the number of days in a Solar year), we have 173,740 days, to which add 119 days for leap years, and we have 173,859 days. Add to these 20 days inclusive from March 14 to April 2, and we have 173,879 days. Divide 173, 879 by 360 (the number of days in a “Prophetical Year”), and we have 483 years all to one day, the exact number of days (483) in 69 weeks, each day standing for a year. Could there be anything more conclusive to prove that Daniel’s 69 weeks ran out on April 2, A. D. 30, the day that Jesus rode in triumph into the City of Jerusalem.

Plagiarism in other Sermons

William Branham must have read a lot of Clarence Larkin because he plagiarized him in a number of his key theological teachings.

Satan's Superman

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
What are we saying? Who is this rider, this horse rider? You know what it is? It's Satan's superman... Notice, this rider is nothing but Satan's superman, a incarnate devil.	This “White Horse Rider” will be Satan’s “SUPERMAN.” The Scriptures clearly teach that there is some day to arise a human being who shall be the embodiment of all Satanic power.

Satan's Trinity

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Notice Satan’s trinity. Same person coming; just incarnate, from one to the other. And the trinity of frogs came out of an old trinity, give birth to a new trinity, their mother. What’d it come out of? A trinity, “the dragon,” see, “the beast,” and “the false prophet.” A trinity, new. For when were these frogs come out? When did it? Notice, they was there all the time, but it wasn’t manifested until between the Sixth and Seventh Vial, just before the Seals opened (Hmm?) to reveal it. “For in the Message of the seventh angel, the mysteries of God would be known,” all these trinitarian things, and false baptisms, and everything was to be made manifest. God help us to see what’s Truth! And not think it’s somebody trying to say something to… I feel that spirit resenting That, you see. I’m not speaking of myself, brother. I’m speaking of the Angel of the Lord that’s in the camp. That’s exactly right. Notice, a trinity! “The dragon,” how many knows what the dragon was? It was Rome. “And the dragon stood before the woman to devour her child as soon as it was born.” That right? What does “beast” mean in the Bible? Power. All right. “False prophet, a false prophet,” a false, anointed one. See? 244 Started where? This is “false prophet,” singular. “False prophet,” the first pope; and from there come out “the—the whore, and the mother of harlots,” the whole thing. A false trinity was rising; not in the early days, wouldn’t be made manifest in the early days, it went right on through with it. But when the Seven Seals be come, and opened those mysteries and revealed them, that’s when “the frogs, three unclean spirits like frogs, come out to manifest themselves,” a trinity doctrine against the Truth. See? Huh!	SATANIC TRINITY The members of it are— 1. “The Dragon”—the Anti-GOD.” 2. “The Beast”—the “Anti-CHRIST.” 3. “The False Prophet”—the “Anti-SPIRIT.”

Future Home

In the sermon, The Future Home Of The Heavenly Bridegroom And The Earthly Bride, William Branham states:

Now, way I always find my Messages is by prayer. I’ll be sitting in prayer and something reveals to me. And I wait on it a few minutes and see if it’s right, then I feel it closer. And then sometimes I keep waiting till it breaks into a vision. But when it begins to come, and I’m satisfied it comes from God, then I go to the Scripture. See, That is, ought to be the confirmation of every spiritual thing that’s done, because the Bible is the complete revelation of Jesus Christ; see, It is His Body.

And now, in that, maybe I find a place in the Scripture that doesn’t sound just right, and I’ll wonder. I go back again to prayer. It comes again. Then I—then I begin to—to examine my Scripture.

...Then, you see, from that inspiration… This pulpit this morning, I say, not one time has it ever been nothing but straight, the Scripture. That’s how Serpent’s Seed and all these other things come.

But is this true? The following are a few of the things that were plagiarized in the sermon, The Future Home Of The Heavenly Bridegroom And The Earthly Bride, but there are more if you want to do your own research.

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Now, many of you that want to put down this word, the Greek word, “pass away.” It comes from the word…I had to find it. I thought, “How is this world going to pass away, and yet we’re going to live on it?” But if you’ll notice, some of you people that wants to put it down, I’ll spell it for you. I couldn’t pronounce it, p-a-r-e-r-e-c-h-o-m-i-a. I don’t know how to pronounce it. Now, that way, as I said, when I get…The inspiration strikes me for something, then I go back to find out the word. Now, here, I can’t spell the word, or I can’t—I can’t pronounce it. But, in that, the Lord has still give me a way. I go and find out what that word means, then I got it. See? Then I got it, again. See? Heavens and earth will pass away, now, this word means, “passing from one form to another.” It does not mean “annihilation,” as the English word would mean, pass away, it’s annihilated. But the Hebrew word, or the Greek word here, does not mean pass away; it means, “from passing from one thing to another.” Look, but, “to pass from one condition,” it says, “to another.” Now notice, Paul used it, if you want to read it now. Put it down, you can read it later. In Titus 3:5, Paul is using this same word, means regeneration of man, that man has passed from a sinner to a saint, not completely annihilated. When a man is changed, he isn’t annihilated, but he’s a changed person. He has been changed from what he was to what he is, not annihilated. Jesus used the same word in Matthew 19:28; now, not 28:19. Now, 19:28, He said to them, “You’ll set with Me in My Father’s Kingdom, regenerated,” you see, “changed,” when you’re changed. He used the same word.	The Greek work “Parerchomai,” translated “pass away,” does not mean “termination of existence” or “annihilation,” but means to pass from “one condition of existence to another.” The Apostle Paul in his letter to Titus, (Titus 3:5), speaking of the “Regeneration” of men, uses the same word that Jesus used when, in Matt. 19:28, He promised His Disciples that in the “Regeneration,” that is in the “New Earth,” they should sit on “Twelve Thrones” judging the “Twelve Tribes” of Israel. Now no one supposes that the Regeneration of a man is his Annihilation.”
Here is a deep revelation from God. Here, I’ll just stop here. None of these other…I’ll bring the rest of this up, the Lord willing. Notice now the earth is…Well, you turn over into the Book of Revelation, you can see how he measured it by the cubits and by the furlongs. Twenty-three hundred…So now we find out that the—the City is measured, “fifteen hundred miles” square. You know how far that would reach? I measured it off, this week. It would reach from Maine to Florida, and from the eastern seaboard to six hundred miles apast, west of the Mississippi. In other words, half of the United States, just for the City. You say, “There ain’t no room.” When the sea is gone there will be, ’cause pretty near four fifths of it’s in water. That right? The explosion dries up the sea, erupts the earth. Oh, my! Remember, fifteen hundred miles square, what a City! And, but, remember, the sea is gone. “And the breadth and the height are the same.” That would make it fifteen hundred miles this way, fifteen hundred miles that way; fifteen hundred miles; the length by the breadth by the height. Fifteen hundred miles, think of it, transparent gold. And the City had a wall around it. Now, now, that doesn’t necessary mean, by being equal…It said, “And the walls and the foundation were equal,” that doesn’t necessary mean that it’s a cube or square. There is another geographical measure, that the dimensions are the same, that is, a pyramid. Foursquare, “lieth foursquare,” and the walls were the same.	It will take up its abode on the New Earth, and we see in this why this present Earth will have to be renovated by fire, and why there shall be “no more sea,” for the New City is 12,000 furlongs, or 1500 miles square, and would reach from Maine to Florida, and from the Atlantic Seaboard 600 miles to the west of the Mississippi River. In other words would occupy more than one-half of the United States. We are told that the length and breadth and the height of it are equal. This does not necessarily imply that it is a Cube, for there is another geometrical figure that has equal dimensions, and that is a — Pyramid. This is its probable form, for a wall 144 cubits, or 216 feet thick, could not support a wall 1500 miles high, and a wall that high would hide the pyramidal part of the City from view. The 144 cubits (Rev. 21:17) then must refer to the “height” of the wall. In this wall are 12 gates, 3 on each side, each gate of one Pearl, and these gates are never closed.
Did you ever think now, Bride, what it will look like? It is prepared and designed by the Divine Architect. What will that City look like? Now, we’re going to talk about it for a few minutes. The Divine Architect has prepared it, designed it. And, look, He has designed it with tender hands, for His beloved Bride. What’s it going to look like? ...Now, the Divine Architect has designed the New City, where He will live with His Bride, just to Her touch. No wonder the apostle said, “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, or neither has ever entered the heart of man.” Let’s see if we can probe into it just for a moment, see what it’s going to look like. The Divine Architect has designed this for His Beloved. See? Oh, what a place it must be, when, Divine Nature, a Divine Architect has designed it for a Divine attribute that’s been Divinely predestinated by a Divine God Who—Who is the Author of Divine Life! What will that City look like! Think of it. Remember, it’s not Heaven. John say, “I saw it coming down out of Heaven.” It’s to be on earth. See?	But there is not only to be a New Heaven and a New Earth, there is to be a New City. This City is the place Jesus said He was going back to Heaven to prepare for His Bride the Church. John 14:2–4. It is just such a place as we would expect the Divine Architect to design and build. The description of it is surpassingly grand. It is of Celestial origin. It is not Heaven itself, for it comes down “out of Heaven.”

How to interpret scripture

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Now, you must not misinterpret the Word. You say, "Well, I believe It means this." It means just what It says. It needs no interpreter. And you must not misplace the Word. And you must not dislocate the Word. And if we would do either of these, it throws the whole Bible in a confusion and in a chaos. (Christ is Revealed in His Own Word, August 22, 1965)	There are three things that we must avoid in the handling of God’s Word. 1. The Misinterpretation of Scripture. 2. The Misapplication of Scripture. 3. The Dislocation of Scripture. (Larkin, C. 1918. Dispensational Truth, or “God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages“)

The gates to the soul

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
See, taste, feel, smell, and hear: the body, that's the open to the body. The soul is imagination, conscience, memory, reason, and affection, is the senses or the attributes, or like the senses of the soul. (Revelation Chapter 4, January 8, 1961)	The Gates to the “Soul” are “Imagination,” “Conscience,” “Memory,” “Reason” and the “Affections.” (Larkin, C. 1921. Rightly Dividing the Word (88). Clarence Larkin: Philadelphia, PA)

The Token

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Now I want to take a text out of there, just one little five-lettered word: Token. Token! I want to speak on the word, or teach this Sunday school lesson, on the word of a "token." God must see this Token. He must see It in every one of us. He don't want to identify himself out there with that group; no, sir, this fanatics with the blood on the door. He don't want that identification. No matter how much priest he was, how much he knowed the Word, how well he had been raised, what works he had done, how much he had give to the poor, how much he had sacrificed! It's a perfect type of Christ, just exactly, the believer today standing under the shed Blood, identified with the Sacrifice. TOKEN 63-0901M	The blood was a “TOKEN.” “When I see the BLOOD, I will pass over you.” Ex. 12:13. It is not a question of “personal worthiness,” nor of “good works,” nor of “morality,” but of the BLOOD. “It is the BLOOD that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Lev. 17:11. The Israelites were not merely in a salvable state, they were SAVED, not partly but completely. If a hair of one of the “First Born” sheltered behind the blood had been touched, it would have proved Jehovah’s word void, and the blood of the lamb valueless. We may have no assurance as to our salvation, but have we applied the “Blood of Christ” to our soul, are we trusting to it, and it alone, for our salvation? If so, all that is necessary is, that GOD sees it. Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word, 270 (Philadelphia, PA: Clarence Larkin, 1921).

The trail of the serpent

What William Branham Said	What Clarence Larkin Said
Wait till you hear The Trail Of The Serpent... GOD'S.ONLY.PROVIDED.PLACE.OF.WORSHIP 65-1128M	Larkin uses the phrase "The Trail of the Serpent" in one of his diagrams in the his book, Dispensational Truth, or “God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages“

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all of William Branham's teachings that were "borrowed" from Clarence Larkin. However, it should be obvious to any one that is not under the thrall of cognitive dissonance that William Branham's major doctrines on the Book of Revelation and other important concepts originated in Clarence Larkin's books, and not because an angel revealed it to him.

C.L. Franklin

C. L. Franklin was an American Baptist minister and civil rights activist. Known as the man with the "Million-Dollar Voice", Franklin served as the pastor of New Bethel Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan, from 1946 until he was shot and wounded in 1979. Franklin was the father of the American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin.

William Branham stated:

Often give my little story of a little eagle. How the farmer set the hen one time... (William Branham, December 6, 1965, Sermon: Modern Events made clear by prophecy)

But was this really William Branham's "little story", or did he "borrow" it from C.L. Franklin? William Branham first told the story in 1957 but C.L. Franklin told the same story at least 4 years earlier.

What William Branham Said	What C.L. Franklin Said
THE EAGLE IN HER NEST 57-0705 So this farmer went; he got a eagle's egg. And he lacked one in having a setting, so he put the eagle's egg under the hen. And when that hatched out, it was the funniest looking little thing to all those little chickens. Why, he couldn't understand what they were chirping about; he spoke in a different language. He didn't know what them chickens was talking about. I hope you know what I mean. So then, he watched them, and he didn't know what to do. And they all picked on him, 'cause he said he was an odd fellow. He perhaps was. But he was an eagle to begin with. They could stretch their little wings and flop around, and he'd look at them. And they were, all the way they were. Old hen would cluck, and they knowed every one of the clucks, so here come the little chickens all running in. But the eagle didn't understand that cluck. And he wouldn't come in, because he didn't know that kind of clucking. I'm not going to say much, but I hope you know what I'm talking of. He didn't understand it. He talked different. But you know, one day she happened to be out in the barnyard feeding, and the old mother eagle happened to fly by. And as she flew by her great shadow swept over the top of the barnyard; she looked down, and she seen her own. He knows His own. And she screamed to him, and when she did, the little fellow turned his head and begin to look upward. That's the way he ought to have been looking all the time. And when he looked up, she screamed back, and she said, "Son, you're not a chicken; you're mine." ... The old mother said, "You're not a chicken; you don't belong there. You are mine." And he wondered what he could do; that's what he wanted. ... She said, "Just make the first big jump and flop your wings." And he made the first jump and flopped his wings; he found out he wasn't earth bound any more, 'cause he set on a barnyard post, right in a center of a Pentecostal organization. His mother said, "Son, you've got to come higher than that, or I can't get you." Said, "Just give another jump, and I'll bear you up on my wings."	The Eagle Stirreth Her Nest,C.L. Franklin, Chess LP-21, recorded c. 1953 It is said that there was a man who had a poultry farm. And that he raised chickens for the market. And one day in one of his broods he discovered a strange looking bird that was very much unlike the other chickens on the yard. ...And then one day a man who knew eagles when he saw them, came along and saw that little eagle walking in the yard. And he said to his friend, “Do you know that you have an eagle here?” The man said, “Well, I didn’t really know it. But I knew he was different from the other chickens. And I knew that his ways were different. And I knew that his habits were different…” But the man said, “Yes, you have an eagle here on your yard. And what you ought to do is build a cage. After while when he is older he’s going to get tired of the ground… “ And after a while he outgrew that one day and then he had to build another cage. So one day when the eagle had gotten grown...and he began to get restless in the cage. Yes he did. He began to walk around and be uneasy. Why he heard noises in the air. A flock of eagles flew over and he heard their voices. And though he’d never been around eagles, there was something about that voice that he heard that moved down in him, and made him dissatisfied. ...He went there and opened the door. Yes. The eagle walked out, yes, spread his wings…and he flew up a little higher and went to the barnyard. And, yes, he set there for a while. He wiggled up a little higher and flew in yonder’s tree. Yes. And then he wiggled up a little higher and flew to yonder’s mountain. Yes. Yes! Yes. One of these days, one of these days. My soul is an eagle in the cage that the Lord has made for me. My soul, my soul, my soul is caged in, in this old body, yes it is, and one of these days the man who made the cage will open the door and let my soul go. Yes he will. You ought to be able to see me take the wings of my soul."

Billy Graham

• Where did the inspiration for William Branham's sermon, "A Thinking Man's Filter", come from?
• Why is his retelling of Billy Graham's sermon on 2 occasions in 1960, almost identical to the basis for his sermon in 1965?
• Why did William Branham say he picked up a cigarette package when in another place he admits he didnt?

Where William Branham Said The Idea Came From	Where The Idea Actually Came From
A THINKING MAN'S FILTER 65-0822E So I turned around and went down by the river. And I thought, "I'll go down here and hide till they get done, so I can get out." And on the road down, I happened to draw... My attention was drawn to look over to my right side. And, as I did, there laid a empty cigarette package where one of them had throwed down, in all the running of the... when the squirrels were going through the bushes. And I picked up this certain cigarette pack, and was look... I never picked it up; I beg your pardon. I looked down at it. I didn't pick it up, 'cause I don't like the smell of the things, to begin with. And I looked down there, and it's a--a certain tobacco company that I guess I shouldn't call their name, but you'll know. It said on there, "A thinking man's filter and a smoking man's taste." I looked at that thing, and I thought, "A thinking man's filter?" I thought, "If the man could think at all, he wouldn't smoke at all. How could it be 'a thinking man's filter'? A thinking man wouldn't smoke at all." All right. Notice how the story changes the next time he tells it. In the second telling, he does pick up the package and, rather than just happening to notice it on the ground, it is now the Holy Spirit that tells him to pick it up. LEADERSHIP 65-1207 Reminds me of a sermon I preached here not long ago, A Thinking Man's Filter. You might have had it. I was going, walking through the woods, I was squirrel hunting (this fall) and I looked down. And, of course, I can't call the cigarette company. You know it. And there laid a--a cigarette pack laying there. And I just passed by it, looking for... in the woods. And I seen that package laying there, and I looked back again, it said, "A thinking man's filter, a smoking man's taste." I just started walking on through the woods. And Holy Spirit said, "Turn and pick that up." I reached down and picked it up, "A thinking man's filter, a smoking man's taste." I thought "American firm here, selling death under disguisement, to their own American citizens." A thinking man's filter? You... And a smoking man's taste?	It is interesting that William Branham talks about this twice in one week in December 1960, so it obviously impacted him. THE PATMOS VISION 60-1204E How many heard Billy Graham today? It was a wonderful sermon he preached on, how that a people could believe a lie and just keep on in that lie and--and even justify themself and think that they were doing what was right. The American public taking, he said, and--and saying, "A wise man's filter, and the smoking man's cigarette," taking a one of the devil's lies, and instead of making him a fool, whatever he is, to smoke such a thing and try to make him a wise man. He's a fool to even smoke it, when the--when it's full of death and cancer and everything else, and still he puts it down his lungs. He's a fool, not a--not a wise man's filter; there is no such a thing. A wise man don't use the stuff. "There's no life unless it's in Oertel's 92," or something like that. There's no Life outside of Christ; that's the real true Life. What makes men and women drink that stuff? Because they're trying to satisfy that thirst in there that God put in there to thirst after Him, and they're trying to satisfy it with the things of the world. And that's the reason we have those things. That's the reason people act like that, because they're trying to quench that thirst that's in them for God, and the devil's giving them death instead of Life. THE LAODICEAN CHURCH AGE 60-1211E The doctors condemn it and says it's full of cancer. Then they get on the radio and say, "A thinking man's filter." As Billy Graham said, "He's a fool to think that way in the beginning." So... "Thinking man's filter," a thinking man wouldn't smoke it at all. That's right. It take the second thought. But he tells the women it makes them real skinny, you know, so that you can wear some of these new kind of dresses they got. Boy, that sells it. More women smoke cigarettes than there is men now, and a woman will smoke three to one cigarettes to a man. That's exactly right, 'cause she wants to get thin. She don't realize that's TB and cancer and stuff making her that way, just in a baby form, coming into her, eating her up like that, killing her. Not a thing can come out of it but evil. That's right. See? But that--it--it's a thinking man's filter." Oh, my.

William Branham made it clear in one story that he didn't pick up the cigarette package. Then in the next he says that the Holy Spirit told him to pick it up. Why did the story change? Is William Branham being truthful with the origins of his doctrines and stories, or is he doing exactly what is spoken about in Jeremiah 23:30?

Ellen G. White

Ellen White, the "prophet" and founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, stated that:

“Eggs should not be placed upon your table.”

This appears to be another case of William Branham plagiarizing something from another source when he stated:

Do you remember years ago when I first, when we had the little bitty structure here, and I was prophesying, and said, "It shall come to pass in the last days, don't live in a valley and don't eat eggs."

Details of this plagiarized "prophecy" can be found in our article entitled "Don't Eat Eggs".

Ellen White was also a plagiarist?

The four techniques essential to the white­lie brand of super salesmanship are: (a) to play up anything unusual or mysterious about the one to be venerated, so that he or she becomes seen as at a supernatural level; (h) to exalt the acts and utterances to the virtuous and miraculous level, thus reinforcing the idea of the supernatural connection; (c) to deny access to information and records of the events and facts of the past; and (d) to buy time so as to get as far as possible from the point of living knowledge of the beginnings of the legend.

According to Walter Rea, all four of these methods have been used by the Seventh­ Day Adventist Church, and are still being used, in the matter of Ellen White and what has been published under her name.

He also stated:

In the matter of Ellen White's super salesmanship (in relation to both the church and the public), it is becoming evident that she too wanted to encourage, if not demand, that others accept her value structure and lifestyle. In order to obtain this end, she came to believe and to teach others that what she said and wrote was necessary to do, because God wanted it that way. Others around her who shared those views (and indeed even gave her some of them) were willing to let the faithful believe that what she said and wrote were directly the ideas and ways given her by God. This stance gave her every utterance the authority it needed in order to be believed-despite mounting evidence (and the witness of some others) to the contrary. Those who lived by faith, and likewise by evidence to support that faith, began to discover that the white lie was inconsistent with the evidence. And when they made known that discover for their honest pains they were expelled and discredited by character assassination.

'...One reason is now clear why much of the information in the 1884 edition of The Great Controversy could not have been included in the earlier works of Ellen on the same subject (Spiritual Gifts, published 1858­64). James had not yet gotten around to copying it from J. N Andrews; so it was not available to Ellen at the time. The 1888 and 1911 editions of The Great Controversy went back to James White's compilation of doctrines and events and picked up even more of his findings and ideas. But never once was it suggested that the heart of Adventist doctrine-such as the three angels' worldwide message that the church had applied exclusively to the Adventists, the shut door that left everyone else out in the cold, the 2300 days, the seventy weeks, the sanctuary doctrine, the United States in prophecy, the "mark of the beast," the image to that beast-had all come out earlier in James White's Life Incidents.

So striking was the copying done under the name of Ellen-and so sensitive is the information that the heart of Adventist theology and eschatology came, not from the visions of or revelations to Ellen, but from the pen of James sixteen years before Ellen wrote them out- that time should be spent examining the evidence in Life Incidents.

Here it should be recalled that the four small volumes of Ellen's Spiritual Gifts (1858­64) were amplified to the four volumes of Ellen's The Spirit of Prophecy (1870­84) and then expanded to Ellen's The Great Controversy (1888 ea.) of the five­volume Conflict of the Ages Series. Inasmuch as the earlier eight volumes are now again available in facsimile editions, anyone can examine all the books and note the progressive copy work through the years. Meanwhile, during those same years, the legend grew and grew and was "sold" and accepted that God had given Ellen exclusive and firsthand knowledge of his plans for the future events of the church and the world.

Comparison shows that words, sentences, quotations, thoughts, ideas, structures, paragraphs, and even total pages were taken from James White's book to Ellen's book under a new title-with no blush of shame, no mention of her husband, no thanks to Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews, for the hard work and theological insights of anyone.

Unfortunately for James, he did not have the personal advantage of angels checking in and out on schedule with the firsthand information Ellen purported to have. Without any intermediary, he had to get his material from human sources. But he was equal to the task. Much of his material in Life Incidents was taken primarily from J. N. Andrews, whose book published in 1860, interestingly enough, was entitled The Three Messages of Revelation XIV, 6­12, and particularly The Third Angel's Message and The Two ­Horned Beast. James, unlike his wife Ellen, did not even bother to paraphrase-he just took the material from Andrews wholesale into his work.

Nothing has been released from the White Estate as to how Andrews or Uriah Smith felt about all this "taking" in the name of God. Perhaps the fact that they were brothers-­in-­law, both assisting in the editorial work of the Review, both personal friends of the Whites-and thus able to sit around the same table to finalize their views-might have softened the pain of Ellen's copy work. One might be tempted to think that Ellen set the pattern and James may not have given much thought to doing the same thing. Of course, there was in fact no excuse for anyone not to give thought-especially in view of the statement published in an 1864 issue of the Review under the heading "Plagiarism": This is a word that is used to signify "literary theft," or taking the productions or another and passing them off as one s own.... We are perfectly willing that pieces from the Review, or any of our books should be published to any extent, and all we ask is, that simple justice be done us, by due credit being given.

Examination reveals that the 1860 book of J. N. Andrews was an exact replay of his own 1851­55 articles in the Review. Thus James and Ellen had available for their perusal and use after 1855 the content and form of Andrew's work for incorporation in their own work: Spiritual Gifts (1858­64); Life Incidents (1868); The Spirit of Prophecy (1870­84); Sketches of. . . William Miller (1875); The Great Controversy (1888).

This information may or may not disturb those who now say that the group of pioneers sat around the table and worked out in conjunction with Ellen their ideas and theology. But it does indeed disturb those who were taught that such ideas and theology originated with greater authority and mystique than the common ideas of human endeavor seem to command.

William Sowders

For details on the similarities with William Sowders, please go to the article on how William Branham appears to have copied doctrinal teachings from Sowders.

Questions and Answers on Plagiarism

We have received several emails on the subject of William Branham's plagiarism. Our responses to these questions can be found in our article entitled Q&A:Plagiarism.

Defenses against the charge of plagiarism

We have had message believers state that there are several reasons why William Branham was not guilty of plagiarism. However, these claims do not hold up to any kind of scrutiny and simply appear to be symptomatic of Cognitive Dissonance.

Derivative work

It is argued by some message believers that William Branham did not plagiarize clarence Larkin's works but rather created a derivative work. The argument was presented as follows:

...a derivative work is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works. Briefly, any other form in which an original work may be recast, transformed, or adapted can be considered a derivative work. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications that, when taken as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is also a "derivative work" (Source: Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101). In other words, using an existing idea to create or transform it into another idea. To put it bluntly, it means you can copy someone’s idea for the purpose of presenting a new idea. So basically, what William Branham did was a typical derivative work from Clarence Larkin.

It is correct that U.S. copyright law protects the right to "make a derivative work," such as a movie from a book. But a derivative work does not include a direct copying of Larkin's work verbatim and including it in the Church Age book.

We suggest that anyone concerned with this issue should review Larkin's work on the church ages and then read the first few chapters of Branham's church age book. Several pages of Larkin's work are copied almost verbatim.

William Branham's plagiarism of Larkin's work is morally, ethically and biblically wrong.

Public domain

The argument that William Branham did not plagiarize Larkin's works is as follows (taken from an argument presented by a follower of William Branham:

According to U.S. copyright laws, any works published before 1923 are already entered into public domain. It means it is given to the public. Anyone can freely use of the materials without asking permission or paying anything. Both of Larkin's 2 books being published before 1923, has already entered in public domain. By this alone, it is a proof that there is no plagiarism because the material was never stolen. There is no such thing as stealing in public domain materials.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't look at what the situation was during William Branham's lifetime. Larkin's The Book of Revelation was published in 1919 and passed into the public domain in 1975, 10 years after William Branham died.

So William Branham was in clear violation of U.S. copyright law when he published the Church Age book in 1965.

Larkin was mentioned by Branham

William Branham only mentioned Clarence Larkin 3 times in the recorded sermons. He is never mentioned in the Church Age Book.

I've been reading Dr. Larkin's book, Dr. Smith's book, Dr. Scofield's notes, different commentaries from men everywhere, and yet I cannot put theirs together to make it come out right.

And so, no doubt that down through the age there has been hundreds times hundreds of people, scholars, abled men, trying to explain what these seventy of weeks were. And I've read many of their commentaries on it. And I'm very grateful to Mr. Smith of the Adventist church for his views. I'm very grateful to Dr. Larkin of his views. I'm grateful to all these great scholars for their views on this. And in reading them, it enlightens me much that I can find places that looks right. But to get the views that I--I thought that I would like to explain, I searched through the encyclopedia of time to find out what time meant.

I had my own idea, as every minister does, of reading maybe what other man had said; and believing as much as I possible, with them, on the things that they had drawed up, their conclusion. I had read the book of Mr. Smith, Uriah Smith, which is the Adventist teacher, and I had read his--his thoughts on it. And I had read Mr. Larkin. I had read, oh, so many different ones, of their commentaries on This. But, somehow or other'n, I thought I had a--a little view of it, myself, that might be of places different. But trying one time, just speaking three subjects, the first... or the four subjects of the four horse riders. I preached on it four nights, one on one horse, and the other. But then just before it happened, I was given a vision...

So while William Branham mentions Larkin, he never mentions him in the context of the sermons that he preached that were based on Larkin's materials. Larkin is never mentioned in the church age series or the seven seals series. Larkin is also not mentioned in the Church Age book.

That is what plagiarism is all about. Taking someone's work and not giving them due credit. He said he didn't really agree with Larkin when he actually stole a lot of his ideas. That is just wrong morally, ethically and biblically.

This article is one in a series of studies on message theology - you are currently on the article that is in bold:

• William Branham's Major Doctrines
• Did William Branham steal his doctrine from others?
• Did William Branham have the spirit of Elijah?
• Doctrines that William Branham taught that are not in the Bible
• William Branham's Theology
• Other minor doctrines of William Branham

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us