Jump to content

Rise of a Woman in America: Difference between revisions

Line 25: Line 25:
#Demonstrably False,  
#Demonstrably False,  
#So vague as to be largely unfalsifiable,or  
#So vague as to be largely unfalsifiable,or  
#Based on common scientific knowledge and/or common
#Based on common scientific knowledge and/or common sense.  
sense.  


This is true even if you allow multiple variations of the same prophecy over time, which is in itself problematic. One would think that a would-be prophet who often mentioned his "prophecies" after their supposed fulfillment would at least havesome wins to debate, but strangely enough, this isn't the case.  In the matter of the woman coming to power, it is both (b) and (c).
This is true even if you allow multiple variations of the same prophecy over time, which is in itself problematic. One would think that a would-be prophet who often mentioned his "prophecies" after their supposed fulfillment would at least have some wins to debate, but strangely enough, this isn't the case.  In the matter of the woman coming to power, it is both (b) and (c).


One could use the exact same prophecy to claim fulfillment ofheavy Catholic influence or an actual woman in power, and predicting that a woman will someday be President of the UnitedStates carries with it the same inevitability as a massiveearthquake along the San Adreas fault line, or cars that will oneday drive themselves. As they say, doesn't take a prophet.
One could use the exact same prophecy to claim fulfillment of heavy Catholic influence or an actual woman in power, and predicting that a woman will someday be President of the United States carries with it the same inevitability as a massive earthquake along the San Andreas fault line, or cars that will oneday drive themselves. As they say, doesn't take a prophet.
The x-factor here is the purple dress. Without it, this is justanother vague non-prophecy to go along with dozens of others.  The fact that Kamala Harris wore a purple dress at inauguration– along with several other women, to symbolize an era of cooperation between Republicans (red) and Democrats (blue), Imight add–seems to carry some specificity, an ingredient sorelylacking most of Branham's prophecies/predictions.
 
There are a couple of problems with this. The first is thatBranham's followers are so accustomed to sloppy, vague nonpropheciesthat one element of a vision that seems to align perfectly is cause for celebration and confidence. That in itself istelling. The bible is very clear on the requirements for prophecy totake seriously and we are still waiting for a msg minister toprovide a single example that meets the criteria.
The x-factor here is the purple dress. Without it, this is just another vague non-prophecy to go along with dozens of others.  The fact that Kamala Harris wore a purple dress at inauguration– along with several other women, to symbolize an era of cooperation between Republicans (red) and Democrats (blue), Imight add–seems to carry some specificity, an ingredient sorely lacking most of Branham's prophecies/predictions.
Speaking of the purple dress, I think there is ample evidence tosupport that Branham was using the purple of royalty to symbolize the "purple curtain" (Roman Catholic Church), thoughin a debate I would happily concede the point as the validity ofthe prophecy hardly rests on that one detail. Branham himselfrepeatedly stressed how every single detail of a vision must be
 
just exactly right.
There are a couple of problems with this. The first is that Branham's followers are so accustomed to sloppy, vague non-prophecies that one element of a vision that seems to align perfectly is cause for celebration and confidence. That in itself is telling. The bible is very clear on the requirements for prophecy to take seriously and we are still waiting for a msg minister to provide a single example that meets the criteria.
Even more importantly, even if every single detail of this visionwere undeniably perfect, (it's not), that wouldn't negate theinsurmountable case against him as a false prophet otherwise. IfKamala Harris's term comes and goes with little drama, expectmsg folks to simply re-assign this "prophecy" to the next womancandidate, just as they did with Hillary Clinton. If she happens tonot wear purple, well, I expect they'll leave that detail out. Afterall, there are multiple versions of this prophecy/prediction to pickfrom. And if Joe Biden is in some way incapacitated or dies andHarris actually becomes president? Fasten your seatbelts, thenoise from the msg corner will become even louder.
 
Speaking of the purple dress, I think there is ample evidence to support that Branham was using the purple of royalty to symbolize the "purple curtain" (Roman Catholic Church), though in a debate I would happily concede the point as the validity of the prophecy hardly rests on that one detail. Branham himself repeatedly stressed how every single detail of a vision must be just exactly right.
 
Even more importantly, even if every single detail of this vision were undeniably perfect, (it's not), that wouldn't negate the insurmountable case against him as a false prophet otherwise. IfKamala Harris's term comes and goes with little drama, expectmsg folks to simply re-assign this "prophecy" to the next woman candidate, just as they did with Hillary Clinton. If she happens to not wear purple, well, I expect they'll leave that detail out. Afterall, there are multiple versions of this prophecy/prediction to pick from. And if Joe Biden is in some way incapacitated or dies and Harris actually becomes president? Fasten your seatbelts, the noise from the msg corner will become even louder.


===The Multiple Versions of the Prophecy===
===The Multiple Versions of the Prophecy===