Jump to content

Red Herring Arguments: Difference between revisions

Red Herring Arguments (view source)

Revision as of 03:32, 14 February 2022

15,166 bytes added ,  2 years ago
m
Admin moved page Failed Prophecies to Red Herring Arguments
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
There is no question that some of William Branham's prophecies failed.  That is, they were never fulfilled.
{{Top of Page}}
<youtube>http://youtu.be/WjjTMBNDU2M</youtube>


Examples of this are many, but include, among others:
This article examines the response of people in the message to the failed visions.


*[[The Municipal Bridge Vision]]
=The use of red herring arguments by message followers=
*[[The Vision of the Meetings in South Africa]]
*The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] Prophecy
*[[The Brown Bear Vision]]


<br>
Message believers have to reconcile what they believe (that William Branham was a prophet) with historic facts (that William Branham's prophecies did not all come to pass).  The easiest way to do this is to trivialize the importance of facts until the person feels comfortable ignoring them.  This is required because of a psychological condition which is common in people involved in cults that is referred to as [[Cognitive Dissonance]]. 


=Explanations for the Failed Prophecies=
There is no such fish as a "red herring"; it refers to a particularly strong kipper, a fish (typically a herring) that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked. This process makes the fish particularly pungent smelling and, with strong enough brine, turns its flesh reddish. The term "red herring" was thought to have originated from the technique of training young fox hounds.  When the dog was being trained to follow the faint odour of a fox, the trainer would drag a red herring (whose strong scent would confuse the animal) acreoss the animal's trail to confuse the dog. The dog eventually learned to follow the scent of the fox rather than the stronger scent of the red herring.


[[Cognitive Dissonance]] forces message believers to deal with these failed prophecies in a variety of ways.  But in order to end the cognitive dissonance, they have to make these issues unimportant and capable of being ignored because that is exactly what they do with these problems, ignore them.
In the area of logic or arguments, a '''red herring''' is an issue or fact that is introduced to deliberately mislead or distract a person from the actual concern that is being raised.  A red herring is a distracting argument that leads people towards a false conclusion.  A red herring might be intentionally used (particularly where there are no real arguments against the issue), or it could be inadvertently used during an argument as a result of poor logic.


The following are some of the explanations provided.
Voice of God Recordings explanation of why William Branham's failed prophecies are not important relies totally on the use of red herring arguments.


==Jonah prophesied against Nineveh but it was not destroyed==
==Voice of God Recording's basic argument==
 
Jonah prophesied against Nineveh saying that it would be destroyed but but it wasn't.  Similarly William Branham prophesied certain things and they didn't come to pass.  God works that way sometimes.
 
The problem with this explanation is that it is done without a true knowledge of the scripture.
 
God told Jeremiah:
 
:''At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.''  Jeremiah 18:7–8 (NASB95)
 
So God has clearly outlined the conditions under which a "Thus Saith The Lord" prophecy will not come to pass.  But those conditions do not apply to ANY of William Branham's failed prophesies.
 
[[The Municipal Bridge Vision]] involves a vision which William Branham said was fulfilled.  The problem is that it was not fulfilled.  How can you compare that with Jonah and Nineveh?
 
The real problem, '''the Biblical problem''', with William Branham's unfulfilled visions is Deuteronomy 18:22.
 
:''When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.'' Deut 18:22(NASB)
 
William Branham agreed with this being the Biblical standard.
 
:''But we both know that the visions God gives me NEVER FAIL. NOT ONCE. If anyone can prove a vision ever failed I want to know about it. Now that you follow me this far here is my story.'' 
:::PERGAMEAN CHURCH AGE - CHURCH AGE BOOK CPT 5
 
:''"If there be a prophet among you, or one who professes to be, and what he says doesn't come to pass, then don't you fear him. It's not right. But if the Lord has spoke to him, He will bring it to pass." See? That's the way you will know it. God give us instructions whether to know. Where we don't have to presume anything, nothing. You don't have to just imagine; you can have an experience to know it. Yes, sir.''
:::PRESUMING PHOENIX.AZ  WEDNESDAY 62-0117
 
:''He said here was the test of a prophet: if a prophet prophesied, and that what he said come to pass, then hear him. But if it don't come to pass, then God hasn't spoke. That's all. So don't--don't fear him. That's right. "If there be one among you who's spiritual or a prophet, I, the Lord God, will make myself known unto him in visions, speak to him in dreams. And if it comes to pass, then I--that's Me speaking." Sure, God ain't going to lie. You know He can't lie there's nothing in Him to lie. He's the Fountain of all purity, all truth, is God. So it can't be a lie come from God. He's perfect, pure.'' 
:::THE SIGNS OF HIS COMING CLEVELAND TN  SATURDAY 62-0407
 
==The Bible has errors and people believe it.  So if the message has errors, you should still believe it==
 
An example of this is the reasoning given by '''Voice of God Recordings''' ("VoGR") in '''Catch the Vision''', 2012, Volume 2.
 
The first thing that VoGR tells you is that you shouldn't reason with the Word of God.  The next thing they do is to apply flawed reasoning to the issue.  But I thought we weren't supposed to reason?
 
Message believers are so desperate for an explanation that this flawed reasoning was immediately copied by a few well known message ministers such as Ed Byskal and Vin Dayal.
 
Here is the argument:
 
#The message has mistakes in it.
#The Bible has mistakes in it but we believe it.
#We should believe the message even though it has mistakes.


The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that the "problems" in the Bible are the same as the problems in the message.
'''Voice of God Recordings''' ("VoGR"), is an entity led by William Branham's sons and dedicated to sharing his sermons.  In a publication called '''Catch the Vision'''(2012, Volume 2), they explain away the failures in William Branham's prophecies without discussing the facts. Their argument flows as follows:


But are they the same?
#William Branham's Message has mistakes in it.
#The Bible has mistakes in it.
#We still believe the Bible despite its mistakes.
#Therefore, we can believe William Branham's Message confidently.


Three examples of Biblical "errors" that VOGR gives are:
Three examples of Biblical "errors" that VOGR gives are:
Line 68: Line 28:
#Genesis 15:13 says that the Egyptians would afflict the Israelits for four hundred year but Exodus 12:40 states that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.  How can the Bible be trusted if there is a difference of 30 years?  
#Genesis 15:13 says that the Egyptians would afflict the Israelits for four hundred year but Exodus 12:40 states that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.  How can the Bible be trusted if there is a difference of 30 years?  
#Every Gospel tells the resurrection story differently.  How can the Bible be true if a story this important is different in all four accounts (i.e. the number of women and angels present at the tomb)?
#Every Gospel tells the resurrection story differently.  How can the Bible be true if a story this important is different in all four accounts (i.e. the number of women and angels present at the tomb)?
The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that the "problems" in the Bible are the same as the problems in the message. But the problems aren't the same. 
For starters, the Bible accounts are written by different people thousands of years ago, while the Message is from one source (William Branham) and his spoken words can be searched in an electronic database online.  Second, William Branham spoke English, while the Bible is translated from an ancient form of Greek and Hebrew.  The King James Bible in itself is a translation of Hebrew and Greek into Latin, and then into English. 
Let's address the specific examples provided by VoGR:


===Differences in Paul's Conversion Experiences===
===Differences in Paul's Conversion Experiences===
Message ministers don't understand Greek.  In fact, they like to mock those that study it (for example, listen to Vin Dayal's sermon of January 13, 2013).  For them, perhaps ignorance is bliss.  But if you were a non-English speaker, how could you really hope to understand what William Branham is really saying if you don't speak English?  And what if the translator was translating into your mother toungue but using language from 400 years ago?  Do you understand that there might be a bit of a problem?
 
Message ministers don't understand Greek.  In fact, they like to mock and scoff those that study it (for example, listen to Vin Dayal's sermon of January 13, 2013).  For them, perhaps ignorance is bliss.  But if you were a non-English speaker, how could you really hope to understand what William Branham is really saying if you don't speak English?  And what if the translator was translating into your mother toungue but using language from 400 years ago?  Do you understand that there might be a bit of a problem?


But for those of you who might be curious, here is something to ponder.
But for those of you who might be curious, here is something to ponder.
Line 88: Line 55:
This is very clear in a modern English like the NASB, where VoGr's problem with the Bible suddenly disappears:
This is very clear in a modern English like the NASB, where VoGr's problem with the Bible suddenly disappears:


Acts 9:7 (NASB95) - ''The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.''
:Acts 9:7 (NASB95) - ''The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.''
 
:Acts 22:9 (NASB95) - ''And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.''
 
What Voice of God and Joseph Branham have done is to exaggerate the differences in the accounts of Paul's conversion experience.  They are throwing the Bible under the bus in an attempt to get message followers to overlook the problems with William Branham's failed visions and lack of credibility.
 
===Abranham's prophecy was also wrong===
 
The Old Testament (Genesis 15:13) and the New Testament (Acts 7:6) both agree that Abraham’s offspring would dwell in a foreign land, and would be afflicted. The term of this is 400 years, and either refers to 400 years of slavery, or from the date of the prophecy until the end of the slavery.
 
The Old Testament (Exodus 12:40) also states that the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. The New Testament then confirms that the law came 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham about his offspring (Galatians 3:16-17).
 
Both the 400 year period and the 430 year period end with the exodus from Egypt (Genesis 15:14, Exodus 12:41), after which they head straight to Mt. Sinai to receive the law. The difference between the 400 year and 430 year periods is two different important starting events, 30 years apart from each other.
 
'''400 Years of Slavery'''
 
The position of some ancient Jewish rabbis is that Genesis 15:13 speaks of Israel’s affliction in Egypt and Exodus 12:40 speaks of the longer gap of their sojourning (i.e. they were not afflicted immediately, but only after a Pharaoh came to power who did not know Joseph).  Hence, this latter span includes the additional 30 years.


Acts 22:9 (NASB95) - ''And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.''
'''400 Years from the start of affliction'''


===400 Years or 430 years?===
God’s covenant with Abraham marks the start of the 430 year period (Galatians 3), after which Isaac was born 25 years later.  The 400 year period of suffering would have then started with the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah. Isaac, the son of promise, is a type of Jesus Christ and a representative of the affliction that the Son of God would eventually endure.


No chronological problem exists between Genesis 15:13 (“400 years”) and Exodus 12:40 (“430 years”).  
Here are two reasonable explanations (one Jewish, and the other Christian) which are provided as to why no real issue problem exists between Genesis 15:13 (“400 years”) and Exodus 12:40 (“430 years”).  


While 400 could easily be a general, rounded-off time span, the Jewish rabbis’ ancient resolution is that Genesis 15:13 speaks of Israel’s affliction in Egypt and Ex 12:40 speaks of the longer gap of their sojourning (i.e. they were not afflicted immediately after Joseph's death but only after the pharaoh came to power that did not know Joseph.  Hence, this latter span includes the additional 30 years.
This red herring was also used by [[A response to Pastor Wisper Gwena|Pastor Wisper Gwena in his recent defense of William Branham]].


===Differences in the Gospel Accounts===
===Differences in the Gospel Accounts===
Line 132: Line 115:
The closest, most critical, examination of these narratives throughout the ages has never destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many.
The closest, most critical, examination of these narratives throughout the ages has never destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many.


=Why a Comparison to William Branham's Failed Prophecies is a Red Herring=
==Pastor Wisper Gwena's use of the red herring==
 
The Off The Shelf podcast did a [http://offtheshelf.life/podcast/episode-42-how-to-defend-william-branham-poorly-part-1/ 5 episode series commenting on Pastor Wisper Gwena's 2017 defense of William Branham.]  Pastor Gwena is a pastor of a message congregation in North London, UK.
 
Pastor Gwena’s argument is this:
 
#William Branham's appears to be a false prophet according to Deut 18:20-22.
#Abraham and Elijah in the Old Testament also could appear to be false prophets according to Deut 18:20-22.
#But the Bible tells us that both Abraham and Elijah were men of God.
#Therefore, we have biblical precedence to excuse William Branham's failures as well.
 
Pastor Gwena adopted Voice of God's red herring argument as outlined above.  However, he also introduced a new red herring with respect to the prophet Elijah.
 
===Elijah and the red herring===
 
In 1 Kings 19:16-16, we read:
 
:''And, behold, '''there came a voice unto him''', and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?  And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ki 19:13–16.</ref>
 
The problem is that Elijah did not anoint Jehu.
 
According to Pastor Gwena, "''we have a scriptural precedent of things said to a prophet which a prophet does not fulfill and yet we still accept him to be a prophet''."  This is taken as a reason to accept William Branham's status as a prophet regardless of his failed visions.  It is taken as a reason to ignore Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
 
The problem with this explanation is that it is done without a true knowledge of the scripture.  However, there are two good explanations for the failure of Elijah to anoint Jehu. 
 
===Ahab repented===
 
We read of Ahab's repentence in 1 Kings 21:27-29:
 
:''And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. 28 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ki 21:27–29.</ref>
 
Ahab's repentence brought about a delay in God's judgment.  We find this principle outlined in Jeremiah 18:
 
:''At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.''<ref>Jeremiah 18:7–8 (NASB95)</ref>
 
So God has clearly outlined the conditions under which a prophecy will not come to pass.  But those conditions do not apply to ANY of William Branham's failed prophecies.
 
===The message to Elijah was not a prophecy, it was a command===
 
Elijah did not see a vision.  From scripture, we read that God audibly spoke to Elijah and told him what he was to do.
 
Elijah did not say "Thus Saith The Lord, I will anoint Jehu."  God told Elijah what to he was to do.  And then, as a result of Ahab's repentence, he did not require Elijah's obedience.
 
God delayed the judgment on Ahab's house and Jehu was eventually anointed King of Israel in 2 Kings 9:
 
:''Jehu got up and went into the house. Then the prophet poured the oil on Jehu’s head and declared, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anoint you king over the LORD’s people Israel.  You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the LORD’s servants shed by Jezebel.  The whole house of Ahab will perish. I will cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free.<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2 Ki 9:6–8.</ref>
 
This is completely unlike William Branham, who pointed to himself and said:
 
:''Remember it’s on tape here, I seen '''a great huge brown bear'''. That might be a Kodiak and it wouldn’t have worked down there in Canada, ’cause they’re not there, you see. But wherever it will be, it’ll be. It will be, that’s '''THUS SAITH THE LORD'''. It will be.<ref>William Branham, 62-0506 - Possessing All Things, para. 11</ref>
 
:''Now, I’m going back into the country, that you might know, when I come back next year. '''I’m going to get a brown bear that’s almost twice that size'''. You see if it’s right or not. I seen it. When we was standing, put my hands on his haunches laying on the ground, like that. And I could put my hands on his hips like that, and him laying down. Now, you find out if that’s right or not. There’s a whole lot to that. But I just happened to think, I’m supposed to be teaching Sunday school. See? Oh, friends. You all see these little visions around here? No wonder you minister brothers sometimes get suspicious. “Well, it might be mental telepathy. It might be psychology.” Show me somewhere else it’s going on. What about these great psychologists, telepathists? They guess. It sometimes happens, sometimes it never. And it’s this, that, or the other. But God’s perfect and '''never fails'''.<ref>William Branham, 62-0610M - Presuming, para.341</ref>
 
While it is clear why Elijah did not fulfill the command of the Lord, there is no valid scriptural reason for William Branham's failed vision.  And while Pastor Gwena states that he has "biblical precedents" to explain the failed brown bear vision, the red herring arguments of Abraham and Elijah simply aren't valid.  They are red herrings.
 
=Why a Comparison to William Branham's Failed Prophecies is a Smokescreen=


The issues in the failed or flawed prophecies of William Branham are completely different from the two issues raised above.
The issues in the failed or flawed prophecies of William Branham are completely different from the two issues raised above.
Line 145: Line 183:


We could go on and on.  What we would ask is those that read this to be honest.  Please prove us wrong.  If we have any incorrect facts, we will change them as soon as we receive reliable evidence to prove that our position is incorrect.
We could go on and on.  What we would ask is those that read this to be honest.  Please prove us wrong.  If we have any incorrect facts, we will change them as soon as we receive reliable evidence to prove that our position is incorrect.
==Jonah prophesied against Nineveh but it was not destroyed==
Jonah prophesied against Nineveh saying that it would be destroyed but but it wasn't.  Similarly William Branham prophesied certain things and they didn't come to pass.  Sometimes prophets say things that don't come to pass, message people explain.
The problem with this explanation is that it is done without a true knowledge of the scripture.
God told Jeremiah:
:''At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.''<ref>Jeremiah 18:7–8 (NASB95)</ref>
So God has clearly outlined the conditions under which a "Thus Saith The Lord" prophecy will not come to pass.  But those conditions do not apply to ANY of William Branham's failed prophesies.
[[The Municipal Bridge Vision]] involves a vision which William Branham said was fulfilled.  The problem is that it was not fulfilled.  How can you compare that with Jonah and Nineveh?
In [[The Brown Bear Vision|the vision of the brown bear]], William Branham states with an emphatic "Thus Saith The Lord" that he will shoot a huge brown bear.  He didn't.  How can anyone validly compare that with Jonah and Nineveh?
The real problem, '''the Biblical problem''', with William Branham's unfulfilled visions is Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
:''But the prophet who speaks a word '''presumptuously''' in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, '''that prophet shall die'''.’  You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’  When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, '''if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.'''''<ref>Deut 18:22(NASB)</ref>
William Branham agreed with this being the Biblical standard.
:''But we both know that the visions God gives me NEVER FAIL. NOT ONCE. If anyone can prove a vision ever failed I want to know about it. Now that you follow me this far here is my story.''<ref>PERGAMEAN CHURCH AGE - CHURCH AGE BOOK CPT 5</ref>
:''"If there be a prophet among you, or one who professes to be, and what he says doesn't come to pass, then don't you fear him. It's not right. But if the Lord has spoke to him, He will bring it to pass." See? That's the way you will know it. God give us instructions whether to know. Where we don't have to presume anything, nothing. You don't have to just imagine; you can have an experience to know it. Yes, sir.''<ref>PRESUMING PHOENIX.AZ  WEDNESDAY 62-0117</ref>
:''He said here was the test of a prophet: if a prophet prophesied, and that what he said come to pass, then hear him. But if it don't come to pass, then God hasn't spoke. That's all. So don't--don't fear him. That's right. "If there be one among you who's spiritual or a prophet, I, the Lord God, will make myself known unto him in visions, speak to him in dreams. And if it comes to pass, then I--that's Me speaking." Sure, God ain't going to lie. You know He can't lie there's nothing in Him to lie. He's the Fountain of all purity, all truth, is God. So it can't be a lie come from God. He's perfect, pure.''<ref>THE SIGNS OF HIS COMING CLEVELAND TN  SATURDAY 62-0407</ref>


=Conclusion=
=Conclusion=
Line 152: Line 218:
Those that state that some of the failed prophesies of William Branham are comparable to that of Jonah's failed prophecy similarly fail to understand the principles of Biblical prophecy.
Those that state that some of the failed prophesies of William Branham are comparable to that of Jonah's failed prophecy similarly fail to understand the principles of Biblical prophecy.


So to VoGR, Ed Byskal, Vin Dayal and others who are using these red herring arguments to overcome their own [[Cognitive Dissonance]], please go back and address the issues we raise with each of the failed prophecies.  See our [[Money-back Guarantee]].  We want this website to reflect only one thing - the truth.
So to VoGR, Ed Byskal, Vin Dayal and others who are using these red herring arguments to overcome their own [[Cognitive Dissonance]], please go back and address the issues we raise with each of the failed prophecies.  We want this website to reflect only one thing - the truth.
 
=Video Script=
 
Would you recognize a red herring if you saw one?
 
In a discussion, a red herring is an issue that is introduced to deliberately mislead or distract a person from the actual concern that is being discussed.
 
In our Humble Pie article, we raised a number of serious questions that go to the heart of whether William Branham was a prophet.
 
We initially raised our questions with anyone that would listen… and even some that didn’t want to.
 
However, at no time did we ever get a serious response to the many questions that we were asking.
 
Since we posted the Humble Pie article, we have had almost 50,000 people from 179 different countries visit our website.  We have repeatedly asked for anyone to prove the conclusions of our research wrong or to correct any incorrect information that we have posted.
 
However, we have had only one serious response to our request, the results of which can be found on a website called “Searching for Vindication”.  These people actually faced the issue, and have published their research material and findings.  We recommend that you look at this site. 
 
What has surprised us most is that the most common response to our questions from message ministers has been to focus on completely irrelevant topics to divert attention away from the real issues. 
 
Instead of producing answers, these ministers have been producing Red Herrings.
 
Let’s start with Voice of God Recordings,
 
If you read the 2012 Catch the Vision newsletter, volume 2 – you were told that, since skeptics can bring “reasonable” arguments against the Bible, believers should not be surprised when skeptics bring what sound like “reasonable” arguments against the message.
 
You were asked whether it would have been reasonable to believe that Jesus was a “false prophet, wine bibber, law breaker, and Sabbath violator” who was “justly” convicted and sentenced to death by the federal government...  Or would it have been more reasonable to believe the testimony of a group of former prostitutes, illiterate fishermen, and tax collectors?
 
The problem with all of these questions, and similar issues raised by a host of message ministers, is this:
 
:'''They have absolutely nothing to do with the questions that we raised.'''
 
We have asked questions about failed prophecies, prophecies that have changed over time, and stories that William Branham told that hold no bearing to reality.
 
These are issues that ministers have been aware of for years - but chose to hide from their congregations.
 
Sure, we know that William Branham as a man was not perfect.  But that also has nothing to do with the difficulties we have raised regarding failed prophecies.
 
We have been mocked for having the nerve to raise these questions.  One minister compared us to the Three Stooges, attempting to make our questions look foolish.  But they aren’t foolish questions.
 
In fact, the apostle Paul commended the people of Berea for searching the scriptures to determine whether what he said was true.
 
We also have diligently searched the scriptures and want to know, in the light of all of the warnings in the Old and New Testaments about false prophets, how can William Branham be considered a true prophet if even one of his prophecies failed to come to pass?
 
One minister ridiculed us because we raised the issue of William Branham plagiarizing from the works of other men.
 
But in the light of Jeremiah 23:30, this is a serious issue.
 
:''So I, the Lord, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who steal messages from one another that they claim are from me.''<ref>Jeremiah 23:30 (NET)</ref>
 
While William Branham didn’t use the phrase “red herring”, he did use the same concept.  He called it “barking up the wrong tree”, which means that when you go hunting with a lying dog, you will come home empty-handed every time. 
 
Our advice to you is this – if you see a red herring, or think your pastor is barking up the wrong tree, just go and ask him for a direct answer to the specific question that you have.  If he cares about you, he will answer your question.  However, you will probably be asked to be quiet or leave the church, which is what happened to me. 
 
To be perfectly honest, there are actually good answers for all of the questions raised by ministers relating to problems with the Bible.  However, we have not seen any good answers to the questions we have asked about William Branham’s prophecies and his message. 
 
Why are they avoiding these issues?  Is a red herring the best they can do?  Are you really paying them to bark up the wrong tree? 


=References=
=References=
Line 161: Line 283:


R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions (Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998).
R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions (Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998).
{{Failed Visions}}
{{Bottom of Page}}
[[Category:Doctrines]]
[[Category:Critical analysis of William Branham‏‎]]
[[Category:The Message]]
[[Category:Prophecies and Visions of William Branham‏‎]]
[[Category: 1933 Visions]]
[[Category:Honesty and Credibility]]
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/14872...26347"