Jump to content

Matthew 24:28: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Top of Page}}
{{Pointing to himself}}
{{Template:Eagles}}
:'''''For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.''''' (KJV)  
:'''''For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.''''' (KJV)  


William Branham’s followers insist that he was Elijah of Malachi 4, and therefore had a divine right and supernatural ability to interpret the scripture. His interpretation of scripture is accepted over any other, no matter the source, even scripture itself. This is especially troubling because William Branham often paid little attention to context or even the simplest laws of grammar when interpreting a passage of scripture. One example is Matthew 24:28, a verse frequently repeated in message pulpits today:  
William Branham’s followers insist that he was Elijah of Malachi 4, and therefore had a divine right and supernatural ability to interpret the scripture. His interpretation of scripture is accepted over any other, no matter the source, often despite the plain meaning of scripture itself. This is especially troubling because William Branham often paid little attention to context or even the simplest laws of grammar when interpreting a passage of scripture. One example is Matthew 24:28, a verse frequently repeated in message pulpits. Similar comments would also apply to Luke 17:37, although it is not used as frequently.


=What William Branham taught=
=What William Branham taught=
[[File:Eagle on garbage.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Eagle looking for fresh food?]]


:''What is that carcass? The carcass is what the eagles feed on. Now, an eagle is considered in the Bible, a prophet. A prophet is the eagle. God--God calls himself a eagle, and we're eaglets then, the--the believers. You see? And what is the carcass that they feed on? Is the Word. Wherever the Word is, the true nature of the bird will show itself. See? A eagle, which wants fresh meat, he must have his fresh meat. <ref>Questions & Answers, Conduct, Order and Doctrine #2, 1964 (tape#64-0823M)</ref>
:''What is that carcass? The carcass is what the eagles feed on. Now, an eagle is considered in the Bible, a prophet. A prophet is the eagle. God--God calls himself a eagle, and we're eaglets then, the--the believers. You see? And what is the carcass that they feed on? Is the Word. Wherever the Word is, the true nature of the bird will show itself. See? A eagle, which wants fresh meat, he must have his fresh meat. <ref>Questions & Answers, Conduct, Order and Doctrine #2, 1964 (tape#64-0823M)</ref>


The way William Branham unpacks this verse, we are to understand Jesus to mean: Wherever the living Word of the hour is being preached, the elect bride will be congregated around it.  
The way William Branham unpacks this verse, we are to understand Jesus to mean: Wherever the living Word of the hour is being preached, the elect bride will be congregated around it.  
We won't deal with the issue of whether an eagle is a type of the prophet in the Bible; however, this is also based on [[Lazy Theology|lazy theology]] which we deal with in a separate article - [[The Prophet and The Eagle]]


=What the Bible is actually saying=
=What the Bible is actually saying=
Line 46: Line 49:


===William Branham's Incorrect Understanding of Nature===
===William Branham's Incorrect Understanding of Nature===
[[File:Grizzly eating garbage.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Grizzlies eating fresh meat]]


William Branham believed that eagles could only eat fresh meat. He also considered himself an expert on eagles.
William Branham believed that eagles could only eat fresh meat. He also considered himself an expert on eagles.


:''They claim as the--that some of them were vultures because they eat carrion, but that was wrong. I would just different with the man that wrote, '''because I know eagles.''' Eagles only eat live meat. Vultures eat--eat carrion. But a real eagle kills his own meat. He has to have it fresh, just like the grizzly bear and the black bear. The black bear is a scavenger. He--he eats carrion. But--but the grizzly bear, he has to kill fresh every night or when he's going to eat, he eats.
:''They claim as the--that some of them were vultures because they eat carrion, but that was wrong. I would just different with the man that wrote, '''because I know eagles.''' Eagles '''only''' eat live meat. Vultures eat--eat carrion. But a real eagle kills his own meat. He has to have it fresh, just like the grizzly bear and the black bear. The black bear is a scavenger. He--he eats carrion. But--but '''the grizzly bear, he has to kill fresh every night''' or when he's going to eat, he eats.
:''And so is the eagle. A eagle gets fresh meat. He doesn't want anything that's stale, or left over, or hand-me-downs. He--he wants to get his--his own meat. <ref>AS.THE.EAGLE.STIRS.HER.NEST_  BEAUMONT.TX  SUNDAY_  61-0122</ref>
:''And so is the eagle. A eagle gets fresh meat. He doesn't want anything that's stale, or left over, or hand-me-downs. He--he wants to get his--his own meat. <ref>AS.THE.EAGLE.STIRS.HER.NEST_  BEAUMONT.TX  SUNDAY_  61-0122</ref>


While William Branham stated that he knew eagles, he didn't.  It is well known and an accepted fact that all eagles eat carrion.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle]</ref>
William Branham pictured himself as an expert on nature because he was a hunter.  The problem is that he never really studied animals other than to kill them.
 
While William Branham stated that he knew eagles, he didn't.  It is well known and an accepted fact that all eagles eat carrion.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Diet_and_feeding Wikipedia article on the diet of the Bald Eagle]</ref>
 
He also stated that grizzly bears also only eat fresh meat but this is also far from the truth.  It is estimated that a grizzly bear's diet consists of 80-90% of plant material and they also eat carrion.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear#Diet Wikipedia article on the diet of the Grizzly Bear]</ref>


==Fresh Kill or Dead Body?==
==Fresh Kill or Dead Body?==


Though the context of the passage and the ambiguity of the Greek word ''aetos'' should be sufficient to refute William Branham’s repeated misinterpretation of this verse, the death knoll comes when we look a little closer at Branham’s treatment of the word ''carcass''.  
Though the context of the passage and the ambiguity of the Greek word ''aetos'' should be sufficient to refute William Branham’s repeated misinterpretation of this verse, the kicker comes when we look a little closer at Branham’s treatment of the word ''carcass''.  


He not only interprets carcass as meaning the “Word” as in, the Word for our day, but as Christ himself.
He not only interprets carcass as meaning the “Word” as in, the Word for our day, but as Christ himself.
Line 64: Line 73:
William Branham’s intention here is so clear that Voice of God Recordings actually chooses to capitalize the word carcass!  
William Branham’s intention here is so clear that Voice of God Recordings actually chooses to capitalize the word carcass!  


:πτῶμα (ptoma) means “fall,” “plunge,” “collapse,” Aesch. Suppl., 797, transf. “evil,” “defeat,” Aesch. Choeph., 13; Eur. Herc. Fur., 1228, then “what has fallen.” In relation to buildings “ruins,” Polyb., 16, 31, 8, in relation to living creatures “corpse” (from Aesch.), with gen., e.g., πτώματα νεκρῶν, Eur. Phoen., 1482, later (Polyb., etc.) without gen. (incorrect Suid., s.v. πτῶμα· σῶμα, ἄνευ τῆς κεφαλῆς). In the pap. only in the sense of “fall,” “collapse,” P. Oxy., I, 52, 12 (4th cent. A.D.), “windfall,” P. Fay., 102, 20 (2nd cent. A.D.; cf. Suid., s.v.), also a financial tt., P. Lond., I, 3, 37 (2nd cent. B.C.).1
:πτῶμα (ptoma) means “fall,” “plunge,” “collapse,” Aesch. Suppl., 797, transf. “evil,” “defeat,” Aesch. Choeph., 13; Eur. Herc. Fur., 1228, then “what has fallen.”1


:In the LXX 23 times, 8 in Job (only 11 also in Heb., almost as many Heb. equivalents): Is. 30:13 f. of the collapse of a wall, 2 Macc. 9:7 of the overturning of a chariot, Jdt. 8:19 of death in battle, predominantly for “overthrow,” “disaster,” “destruction” (as a punishment), with πρόσκομμα in Is. 8:14 (also ΘΣ); Σιρ. 34:16 vl., with σύντριμμα Is. 51:19; 30:14, with συντριβή Prv. 16:18, with ἀπώλεια Σιρ. 31·6. The meaning “corpse” occurs only in Judges 14:8 (carcass of a lion), perhaps also ψ 109:6 (this use gains ground somewhat in ἈΘΣ).
:In the LXX 23 times, 8 in Job (only 11 also in Heb., almost as many Heb. equivalents): Is. 30:13 f. of the collapse of a wall...The meaning “corpse” occurs only in Judges 14:8 (carcass of a lion), perhaps also ψ 109:6 (this use gains ground somewhat in ἈΘΣ).


:The only meaning in the NT is “corpse,” the carcass of an animal in Mt. 24:28 (vl. σῶμα א; influence of Lk. 17:37), otherwise a human corpse: Mt. 14:12 (vl. σῶμα K) par. Mk. 6:29 of the body of John the Baptist, Rev. 11:8 f. of the bodies of the two witnesses (11:8, 9a collective sing., 9b plur.).<ref>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed., 166 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-).</ref>
:The only meaning in the NT is “corpse,” the carcass of an animal in Mt. 24:28 (vl. σῶμα א; influence of Lk. 17:37), otherwise a human corpse:
 
#Mt. 14:12 (vl. σῶμα K) and Mk. 6:29 - of the body of John the Baptist,  
#Rev. 11:8 of the bodies of [[The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11|the two witnesses]] (Rev 11:8, 9a collective sing., 9b plur.).<ref>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed., 166 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-).</ref>


The Greek word translated as carcass, is ptoma which refers to either:
The Greek word translated as carcass, is ptoma which refers to either:
Line 93: Line 105:
Will we reverently treat the Word of God as the very words of God, filtering all men’s teaching through the totality of scripture, or will we drawn away by the doctrines of a man who is clearly identified many times in scripture, not as Elijah, but as a false prophet who made a career out of irreverent babble.
Will we reverently treat the Word of God as the very words of God, filtering all men’s teaching through the totality of scripture, or will we drawn away by the doctrines of a man who is clearly identified many times in scripture, not as Elijah, but as a false prophet who made a career out of irreverent babble.


 
{{Bottom of Page}}
 
[[Category:Doctrines]]
=References=
[[Category:William Branham pointing to himself]]
 
<References/>