Jump to content

The Municipal Bridge Vision: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
Line 99: Line 99:
This vision is suspect simply because William Branham never attempted to warn anyone.  In fact, he seemed quite proud of the fact that he foretold their deaths (which in fact never happened).
This vision is suspect simply because William Branham never attempted to warn anyone.  In fact, he seemed quite proud of the fact that he foretold their deaths (which in fact never happened).


=Excuses for the failed vision brought on by [[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]]=
=Excuses for the failed vision=


If you don't know what [[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]] is, please read our article on the subjectYou might find that you are suffering from it!
Are you looking for a simple and easy way to ignore the facts above?  If so, this is called [[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]].  It is a term that explains why intelligent people will often settle for answers that are not reasonable, in order to ignore the real issue.
 
One of the results of [[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]] is that dissonance reduction will often cause the sufferer to look for a simple and easy way to ignore the fact that is causing the dissonance.  As a result, quite intelligent people will often settle for answers that are not reasonable, but allow the sufferer to ignore the real issue.


==William Branham was young when he had the vision==
==William Branham was young when he had the vision==
Line 119: Line 117:
==The 1937 Flood destroyed all of the historical archives==
==The 1937 Flood destroyed all of the historical archives==


This is the theory floated by [[VoGR]] in an attempt to refute the failure of the municipal bridge vision.  However, that theory was destroyed by the article on the subject on the [[Searching for Vindication]] website.  While it is true that some archives were damaged, complete archived copies of the Jeffersonville newspapers and the Coast Guard log books remain preserved.
This was the position of Voice of God Recordings until a blog called [[Searching for Vindication]] destroyed this as a plausible theory.  While it is true that some archives were damaged, complete archived copies of the Jeffersonville Newspapers and the Coast Guard log books remain preserved.


Also, does anyone actually believe that the wives, children and parents of the families of 16 men who died would allow their memories to be forgotten?  There isn't the slightest chance that they would.
Also, does anyone actually believe that the wives, children and parents of the families of 16 men who died would allow their memories to be forgotten?  Not in America.


==The vision properly relates to the Ohio River Flood of 1937==
==The vision properly relates to the Ohio River Flood of 1937==


This excuse basically says that only one small element of the vision was true - that it took place 22 years after he had it.  But this would mean that virtually everything about the vision was false.
This excuse basically says that only one small element of the vision was true - that the vision was fulfilled 22 years after he saw it.  But this would mean that virtually everything else about the vision was false.
 
It didn't relate to the bridge construction.  No one fell off the bridge in the construction but 385 people died.
 
Trying to tie the Municipal Bridge Vision to the Ohio Flood is virtually impossible unless you are willing to admit that most of the vision was completely wrong but then, doesn't that still create a problem with Deuteronomy 18:22?


==The vision properly relates to the Sydney Harbour Bridge in Australia==
==The vision properly relates to the Sydney Harbour Bridge in Australia==


[[Cognitive Dissonance]] drives people to find explanations, even if things have to be stretched beyond the realms of reasonableness.  The thought that William Branham was not a prophet is just not possible for their minds to deal with.
This explanation is only possible if you go beyond the realms of reasonableness ([[Cognitive Dissonance|cognitive dissonance]] again).  


The rationale for the Sydney Harbour bridge being the actual object of the prophecy is as follows:
The rationale for the Sydney Harbour bridge being the actual object of the prophecy is as follows:


#16 people were killed in the construction of the bridge.
#16 people were killed in the construction of the bridge.
#The bridge was opened in March 1932 and if you roll back 22 years, that takes you about the time that William Branham was born.
#The bridge was opened in March 1932 and if you roll back 22 years, that takes you to about the time that William Branham was born.
#William Branham never mentioned the Municipal Bridge in the original vision.
#William Branham never mentioned the Municipal Bridge in the original vision.


The issues that proponents of this wild theory don't consider is the following:
Proponents of this wild theory don't consider the following:


#In the FIRST recorded retelling of the vision in 1948 (48-0302), William Branham specifically refers to the municipal bridge.
#In the FIRST recorded retelling of the vision in 1948 (48-0302), William Branham specifically refers to the municipal bridge.
#While 16 people did die in the construction of the Sydney Harbour bridge, only 2 of these people died from falling off the bridge.  William Branham clearly stated that he saw 16 people fall from the bridge.
#While 16 people did die in the construction of the Sydney Harbour bridge, only 2 of these people died from falling off the bridge.  William Branham clearly stated that he saw 16 people fall from the bridge.
#William Branham stated that he had the vision when he was 5 or 6 years old, so 22 years later would put the Sydney Bridge deaths much too early in time.
#William Branham stated that he had the vision when he was 5 or 6 years old, so 22 years later would put the Sydney Bridge deaths much too early in time.
#William Branham clearly stated that he saw the bridge spanning the river but the Sydney Harbour bridge goes across a narrow part of the harbour (i.e. salt water and not part of a river).
#William Branham clearly stated that he saw the bridge spanning the river but the Sydney Harbour bridge goes across a narrow part of an inlet (i.e. its over the ocean, not a river).


=A Big Question=
=A Big Question=