- 10 hours ago
John Collins and John McKinnon discuss how William Branham combined phrases from separate Bible passages into statements that were later repeated as though they were direct quotations from Scripture. They examine the frequently repeated phrase about being "born in sin, shaped in iniquity" and "coming into the world speaking lies," comparing its language with Psalm 51 and Psalm 58 and explaining why they believe the passages have different contexts and purposes.
They also explore exegesis, eisegesis, proof-texting, typology, private interpretation, and the risks of allowing a doctrinal conclusion to control how biblical passages are read. The discussion considers how repeated blended phrases can become accepted religious slogans and how those interpretations can influence later teachings about prophets, restoration, authority, and the meaning of Scripture.
CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
03:41 How Scripture Gets Blended Into New Teachings
10:01 “Born in Sin… Speaking Lies”: Two Psalms Combined
15:52 How Blended Verses Create a New Meaning
21:18 Why Blending Scripture Is Dangerous
27:15 When Interpretation Begins Serving the Teacher
34:04 Redefining the Prophet as a Divine Interpreter
38:30 Typology, Proof-Texting, and Scripture Twisting
44:02 Comparing Scripture With Scripture
49:45 When a Movement Becomes Messenger-Based
______________________
Weaponized Religion: From Christian Identity to the NAR:
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1735160962
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DCGGZX3K
______________________
– Support the channel: https://www.patreon.com/branham
– Subscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBSpezVG15TVG-lOYMRXuyQ
– Visit the website: https://william-branham.org
– Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WilliamBranhamOrg
– Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@william.m.branham
– Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/wmbhr
– Buy the books: https://william-branham.org/site/books
They also explore exegesis, eisegesis, proof-texting, typology, private interpretation, and the risks of allowing a doctrinal conclusion to control how biblical passages are read. The discussion considers how repeated blended phrases can become accepted religious slogans and how those interpretations can influence later teachings about prophets, restoration, authority, and the meaning of Scripture.
CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
03:41 How Scripture Gets Blended Into New Teachings
10:01 “Born in Sin… Speaking Lies”: Two Psalms Combined
15:52 How Blended Verses Create a New Meaning
21:18 Why Blending Scripture Is Dangerous
27:15 When Interpretation Begins Serving the Teacher
34:04 Redefining the Prophet as a Divine Interpreter
38:30 Typology, Proof-Texting, and Scripture Twisting
44:02 Comparing Scripture With Scripture
49:45 When a Movement Becomes Messenger-Based
______________________
Weaponized Religion: From Christian Identity to the NAR:
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1735160962
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DCGGZX3K
______________________
– Support the channel: https://www.patreon.com/branham
– Subscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBSpezVG15TVG-lOYMRXuyQ
– Visit the website: https://william-branham.org
– Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WilliamBranhamOrg
– Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@william.m.branham
– Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/wmbhr
– Buy the books: https://william-branham.org/site/books
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:31Hello, and welcome to another episode of the William Branham Historical Research Podcast.
00:36I'm your host, John Collins, the author and founder of William Branham Historical Research
00:40at william-branham.org, and with me I have my co-host, researcher, and friend, John McKinnon,
00:46author of Godhead and Their Own Words, Voices of Oneness Preachers of the End-Time Message.
00:52John, it's good to be back, and I'm a little bit excited for this episode.
00:56I've actually wanted to do this for quite some time, and this was your idea, you brought
01:01it up, but I have been wanting to talk about the blended scriptures that William Branham
01:07was bringing into the latter rain movement, because these blended scriptures became building
01:13blocks for things that we would develop into today's world, and they were so far off the
01:19mark that it's blatantly obvious that he actually didn't read or understand the scriptures that
01:24he was referencing.
01:26And I started thinking about this whenever I learned that some of the things that I thought
01:32was in the Bible actually was not, because they had been programmed in my head as though
01:37they were, and yet at the same time there were many other people that thought this.
01:42Many people were surprised to learn that some of the passages like we'll mention today just
01:47simply aren't in the Bible, but we were taught that they were biblical phrases.
01:51And it reminds me of what's happening today.
01:54In today's world, we have viral misinformation, and it's so dramatically worse than whenever
02:03I began my career, what was it, 20, 30 years ago?
02:07When I began my career, you used to get, every now and then you'd get an email, and it would
02:11have some misinformation in it.
02:13And there's a website called Snopes that you could go to back then, and you could type in
02:17the headline or the title of the subject matter of the email, and it would pull it up, and
02:22they had researchers that would say, no, this is either proven, true, proven, false, or we
02:28just simply don't know.
02:29But you could go and you could verify the claims.
02:31Well, now, with the volume of misinformation that's coming out, it's impossible to realize.
02:37And I was thinking this is so far worse than back in the, you know, 40s and 50s.
02:42But then I stopped and thought about this subject that we're getting into today.
02:46They had the same type of misinformation, it just was in a different way, because they
02:51had different forms of media.
02:53There was not social media like there is today, but there were many, many circuit writer preachers.
02:58So if you take just religious misinformation, look at all of the people who are bringing
03:03all of the misinformation about what the Bible says based off of their own ideas.
03:08And some of them, like we'll get into today, I don't really think they even read the Bible.
03:13So we're going to talk about something that's, it's a little bit, for me, it's a little bit
03:18a passionate discussion, because this affected every aspect of my life.
03:24Every single thing that I had been taught was questionable.
03:28I'll say it like that.
03:29There were things that were true, yes, but it was questionable as to whether it was true.
03:33But the building blocks of doctrine that I had, some of them, like we're going to be
03:38discussing today, was just completely, blatantly false.
03:41It's good to join you again for another segment, and we're going to continue on what we discussed
03:45the last time, blending the two extremes together into a synthesis, or different contexts that
03:53are used to produce a synthesis, which is really where your goal is to take people.
03:58Today I want to talk about something that comes up a lot when people do study the teachings
04:02of William Branham, the way he would take two different scriptures and pull phrases out
04:07of each one, and then blend them together into a brand new sentence that the Bible never
04:12actually says.
04:13You know, this is not careful Bible study.
04:16It's not really exegesis.
04:18Exegesis means drawing out the meaning out of the text according to its own context, the
04:25grammar and the setting of the Bible.
04:27But what Branham often did is closer to the opposite.
04:30He stitched together words and created statements that support a particular idea or a direction
04:36he was taking the people.
04:38So I want to draw a contrast between the two here.
04:42There are ministers who are genuinely faithful to the task of interpreting scripture, and they're
04:48the ones that slow down.
04:49They take time to ask the really hard questions.
04:51You know, what is the actual context of the passage?
04:54Who was it written to?
04:55What did the words mean in their original setting?
04:58How was it, how were the words used in their original language?
05:01In the culture, how did this first fit with the rest of the chapter, the book, or the
05:05whole counsel of God?
05:07And they're willing to sit down with the text long enough to let it speak on its own terms.
05:11They don't rush to a conclusion, you know, just because a text sounds powerful or seems
05:16to support something they already believe.
05:18Their goal is not to be impressive.
05:20Their goal is to be accurate.
05:22And because of that, they protect the meaning of the text and the people who are listening
05:27to them.
05:28But there are other ministers.
05:30For whatever reason, they don't take the time.
05:33They tend to move too quickly from reading a verse and then drawing a conclusion.
05:37Sometimes it's because they already have a doctrinal point or a pattern they want to make,
05:42and then the text just becomes a tool to serve that point.
05:45And sometimes it's a lack of patience or maybe a lack of education.
05:50With the hard work of careful study, instead of lingering over the grammar, the context,
05:56flow of the argument, they grab maybe a striking phrase and connect it with another striking
06:00phrase from somewhere else.
06:02And soon they've created a teaching that sounds biblical, but it actually hasn't been drawn,
06:07you know, carefully from the Bible.
06:09And the difference here is significant.
06:11You know, one approach makes the text supreme and submits themselves to the text.
06:17The other makes themselves supreme and they just use the text.
06:22You know, one's willing to let Scripture correct or refine their thinking.
06:26The other is more interested in making Scripture confirm or conform to what's already something
06:31they wanted to say.
06:33You know, when a minister refuses to take the time and do the work of real interpretation,
06:39exegesis, the door opens to exactly the kind of blending and shortcut methods, you know,
06:45we've been talking about here and that we're going to talk about today.
06:48Verses get rearranged, context get ignored, and eventually people start treating the preacher's
06:53creative combinations as if they were the Word of God itself.
06:57And I'm going to give several examples of that as we go through in this and other podcast
07:03in the ministry of William Brown.
07:06But faithful ministry requires the discipline of careful study.
07:09It requires the humility to say, I need to understand what this passage really is saying
07:13before I tell anyone what I think it means.
07:16You know, this kind of patience doesn't always produce the most dramatic statements,
07:20but it produces something far more valuable to the people.
07:24It teaching that the Scripture can be trusted because, and they can be trusted as they are
07:31delivering the Scripture because it is completely derived from the text.
07:35And that's what the contrast we're going to show today, John.
07:37And one path takes the time to listen carefully to Scripture.
07:41The other tends to speak before it has truly listened.
07:44You know, that's the exact problem.
07:46Some people just simply do not think before they speak.
07:49And yet, some of those same people have platforms where they can influence large audiences.
07:55And so, what happens is people who are listening to them think they've thought these things through.
08:00Especially in the cases like we're talking about today, this is a messenger from God, we believe.
08:04So, God must be speaking through him, or maybe he's at least read the Bible, read and understood the Scripture.
08:11But it's very similar to what happens today.
08:13In today's world, you have people who don't really think before they speak,
08:17but they have social media tools where they can create a meme,
08:21or they can create short videos of them talking, or something to that effect.
08:25They don't actually give the whole point.
08:27And here's where it gets really, really sketchy.
08:30And it relates back to exactly what you just said.
08:33Not all misinformation is entirely false.
08:36Sometimes misinformation does have just a single thread of truth.
08:39And so, because you can connect with that single thread of truth,
08:44you start to feel like this is trustworthy.
08:46In this case, we're talking about the blending of two Bible Scriptures,
08:50which I'll let you get into and discuss that more.
08:53But think of that.
08:54People are hearing the statement, and they hear the quote from the Bible.
08:57They can easily open up their Bible.
08:59Some of them may have already memorized it.
09:01And they can say, yes, this is true.
09:02I remember that passage from the Bible.
09:04But then, the misinformation happens because they're hearing another passage
09:08that they can also verify and identify.
09:11But, the problem is, in the way that it's presented, those two aren't connected.
09:15So, think of a meme today.
09:17You've seen the political memes.
09:19I'm certain that the listeners have.
09:21Where something is said in the meme that's actually true,
09:24but you find in the comment feeds, well, that's, yes, that's true,
09:27but you're totally missing this other picture.
09:29And then they'll go in and explain why the entire meme is misleading to the public.
09:34That's really what's happening here.
09:36Yes, both passages are Bible passages.
09:38We're not arguing that.
09:40But when you combine them and you try to make the combination say something that it doesn't,
09:45that's the misinformation.
09:47So, I'm going to give the first clear example of this, you know, William Branham's ministry.
09:51I appreciate the comments, John.
09:52Totally appropriate.
09:54And we're going to really dive into this and really explain it to the people
09:57so they hopefully will come away with what we're talking about.
10:00But Branham repeatedly says this statement in his sermons.
10:05He said it many times.
10:06He says,
10:08Every person born is born in sin, shapen in iniquity, and comes to the world speaking lies.
10:13But that phrase is a combination of two different psalms.
10:17One is Psalms 51.5, when David said,
10:20Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
10:24That's David speaking personally after his sin with Bathsheba.
10:27He's confessing the depth of his own sinful nature.
10:31But let's look at Psalm 58.3, where he gets the other part of this verse from, where he blends
10:36it.
10:37Psalms 58.3 says,
10:39The wicked are estranged from the womb.
10:41They go astray from birth, speaking lies.
10:45So, that verse is, the other one is specifically talking about the wicked.
10:50It's not a universal statement about every human baby.
10:54You know, there was a commentator, David Malick, I looked up, talked about this 58th Psalm, in contrast to the
11:0051, Psalm 51.
11:0251.58 is a bold protest against unrighteous judges.
11:08It opens with an indignant expostulation of their deliberate perversion of justice, while they pretend to uphold it.
11:16It lays bare their character and those of whom they favor, as men, thoroughly, habitually, by their very nature, corrupt.
11:24And finally, because they are thus, beyond all hope of correction or amendment, it calls upon God to rob them
11:31of their power, and bring all their counsels to naught.
11:35From their birth, from the wicked's birth, it's from the belly.
11:38The object, however, here is clearly not to insist upon the general truth of our innate depravity.
11:45It marks the special character of wicked men, as men whose life has been one of continuous, unchecked career of
11:52wickedness.
11:53Bold, habitual, hardened transgressors, whose maturity and vice is what might be expected from their early depravity.
12:02So, you see, if you take that psalm, you can't really blend it with what David's talking about.
12:07David is talking from a repentant heart of what he did with Bathsheba.
12:11So, this is, the psalmist is talking about wicked men who are unjust rulers of the day, and how they
12:19come forth from their mother's womb, speaking lies.
12:23The righteous are not so.
12:27But it is true that we have spoken lies in our lifetime, there's no doubt.
12:31But these are two very different psalms, so I would say William Branham did not take the time to thoroughly
12:37exegete these two.
12:39He just wanted to blend them together to make a statement.
12:41It sounds good, it sounds biblical, and people repeat it today as if it were biblical, as if it were
12:47a one Bible verse.
12:49And there's where the danger comes in, because this seems innocent.
12:53But we're going to get into more in later podcasts that will show where it's very dangerous to Scripture,
13:00and very dangerous to how you interpret who Jesus is, even.
13:06So, I believe it's all, my opinion, is that it's all was done for a purpose, you know, in his
13:12ministry.
13:13And we'll get into that more as we go along.
13:15But Branham took born in sin, shapen in iniquity, from one place, and speaking lies from the other,
13:20turned it into a single doctrinal slogan that applies to all of us from birth.
13:25He spoke those exact words from 1951 to 1965 about 39 times, at least, that I could find.
13:34And here's what he said in 1955.
13:36He says, when you're born in this world, you're a sinner when you're born.
13:39The Bible said we're born in sin, shapen in iniquity.
13:42Come to the world, speaking lies.
13:44Here he says in 1957, the Sermon Perfection, and the Bible declares that we're all born in sin,
13:50shapen in iniquity, come to the world, speaking lies.
13:54So, you see, if you go back and search the message in the table,
13:58you'll find he says those exact words, you know, all the time.
14:02But it's problematic to blend Scriptures because you distort their meaning.
14:06Again, we said he takes two truths here in the Scripture.
14:11Now, this is your thesis.
14:13He takes the truth.
14:14It is true what was spoken in Scripture.
14:17We are born in sin.
14:19And on the other side, at some point in our life, at least 99.999% of us will speak
14:25a lie.
14:26There's very few people that have never told a lie.
14:28And so, the synthesis was to combine the two into one sentence
14:31and call us all as if Psalm 58 was speaking of us.
14:37So, the problem with this is not that it's innocent,
14:40but it ignores context.
14:42Psalm 51 is just a personal prayer of repentance.
14:46Psalm 58 is a strong denunciation of violent, unjust people.
14:50They're not interchangeable, and they're not combinable.
14:54Second, you know, it creates the impression that the Bible is just a collection of loose phrases
14:59that we can rearrange however we like.
15:01And once you start doing that, the text really stops controlling the doctrine.
15:05The teacher's desired outcome starts controlling the text.
15:10And that's the most dangerous.
15:12Now, third, it can exaggerate or even distort true doctrines, true Christian doctrines.
15:19You know, original sin is a real biblical teaching.
15:22But saying every newborn creature comes to the world speaking lies
15:26goes beyond what either the Psalm actually claims
15:29and can lead people into an unbalanced view about infant's guilt or human nature.
15:35The problem is simple.
15:37You know, the Bible never puts those exact words together
15:40as one continuous truth about every person.
15:43When we glue verses together like that, John,
15:46we're no longer letting each passage speak in its own setting.
15:49We're actually manufacturing a new statement.
15:52You know, that's just it.
15:53I started to understand that concept when I first left the movement.
15:58I started entering into a new church.
16:00And we covered Bible passages chapter by chapter by chapter.
16:04And we did not forget the chapter before,
16:07and we often referenced the chapter after.
16:10And by we, I mean the minister behind the pulpit.
16:13And so I started to understand that reading in context is critical
16:17because it says entirely different things than I was taught.
16:19I'll just say it like that.
16:21It would be like if you, I don't know,
16:23if you took two different books of the Bible
16:25and you combine them like this,
16:27it would be similar to if you took Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities
16:31and Les Miserables and just took pieces of each book,
16:34little paragraphs or passages from each book,
16:37and combine them to make a new book.
16:39It becomes neither Tale of Two Cities or Les Miserables.
16:42It is a completely different book
16:44with a completely different meaning and story.
16:46You just can't do this and make it say the same thing.
16:49So what you do when you take two Bible verses
16:52and you blend them,
16:53you end up making a new book.
16:55And in effect, you create a new Bible.
16:58And sadly, because you're choosing the scriptures
17:01to make your statement or your theme,
17:03you're inventing the Bible according to your own viewpoint.
17:06So what Branham was doing essentially was
17:09he was not trying to make his statements fit the Bible
17:13or the theme that the Bible is presenting in the context.
17:16What he was trying to do is take the Bible
17:18and make it fit his theme.
17:20And since he could not do that,
17:22there are cases like this and there's others
17:24that we can examine where he's literally
17:26taking the Bible out of context just to prove his point
17:30rather than being aligned with scripture.
17:32So if you think sola scriptura,
17:35he was the opposite.
17:36He was the anti-sola scriptura.
17:39And this really, for me, this creates a big problem
17:41because whenever you do this,
17:43again, these Bible verses are real.
17:46Listeners hear it.
17:47And not everybody makes that connection.
17:50Not everybody's critically thinking to understand,
17:51wait a minute, those two Bible verses,
17:53they don't go together at all.
17:55But that's what he was doing.
17:57And so as this became a viral thing,
18:00I'll never forget whenever this example that you just gave,
18:05the comment to the world speaking lies,
18:07if you go to the Branham organization website
18:11and you search grouped by words, speaking lies,
18:15you're going to find that just that phrase
18:18happens 84 times from 1951 to 1965.
18:22But it's not the only time he talks about this.
18:25And the irony is whenever I learned that,
18:28I had already been going through his life history
18:32and finding all of the many things that he said
18:34that were blatant lies about himself,
18:37about his ministry, about his supernatural events,
18:41all of the different things that he's saying.
18:43Yes, there were some that may have been true.
18:45Yes, there were some that were questionable.
18:46But the vast majority of them were actually lies.
18:50And then here's a man who's bringing this doctrine
18:53to support his ministry,
18:54saying that we come into the world speaking lies.
18:56The irony was just overwhelming.
18:58So I began to look at the way
19:01that he was presenting his information
19:03and the way that he was twisting his audience.
19:06So if there was an issue,
19:07then suddenly it doesn't matter
19:09because we all come into the world speaking lies.
19:12If he gets caught in one of his mistruths,
19:16all he has to do is say,
19:17yes, but brother, sister,
19:18we came into the world speaking lies.
19:20And if I'm not mistaken,
19:22I think the first year,
19:23if I remember correctly, was 1951.
19:25I was going through that history
19:27and you can start to see
19:29where people are starting to question his statements,
19:32the biggest of which is a man raised from the dead.
19:35This became such a big event
19:38here locally in Jeffersonville.
19:40He was in Canada claiming
19:41that he pulled a body out of the morgue
19:43and raised it from the dead.
19:44And they wrote,
19:46the newspapers wrote to Jeffersonville.
19:47You can find all this information on my website.
19:50And Jeffersonville News is like,
19:51no way that happened.
19:52We would have heard it.
19:53And so they investigated.
19:54They found the guy
19:56and he hadn't actually died.
19:57And so this turned into this big battle.
20:00Well, things like this were starting to stack up.
20:02And by 1951, he had to have an answer.
20:05And that's when the doctrine came out,
20:07come into the world speaking lies.
20:09So I don't know if it was a defense of his ministry.
20:12He's not alive to ask why he did this.
20:15But what he did was so grossly in error
20:17that I have heard that same phrase
20:19from ministers today
20:21who also haven't read the Bible
20:23to understand this is not actually a Bible verse.
20:25They're quoting Branham directly,
20:27saying the Bible says,
20:28and then they combine the two verses.
20:30So the misinformation has continued
20:32into today's world
20:34through the Branham religions.
20:36But now compound that
20:37with everything that was built
20:38on top of Branhamism.
20:40Every single minister,
20:41and we're talking,
20:42there were hundreds,
20:43if not thousands of ministers
20:45in these revival meetings.
20:47Thousands of people potentially
20:48who take a doctrine
20:49that they think is in the Bible,
20:51but it's actually not.
20:52It's the blend of two.
20:54And then they start building doctrines
20:55on top of it.
20:56Well, we come into the world speaking lies,
20:58and then X or Y or Z.
21:01You don't know where this has ended up.
21:03The problem,
21:04as you examine that,
21:05is when you build false doctrines
21:07on top of false doctrines,
21:09you end up with this stack of doctrines
21:11that turns into such error
21:12that you can't really
21:13make any sense of it at all.
21:15John, that's just so true.
21:17I mean, when we distort Scripture,
21:18it's very dangerous.
21:19And that's what I want to get into next.
21:21Why is this method
21:22that William Branham is using
21:24so dangerous?
21:25This seems so innocent,
21:27but why is it dangerous?
21:28Why is it actually harmful
21:30to blend Scriptures?
21:32Because the two verses reside
21:34in different contexts.
21:35They're not meant to be combined.
21:37God never combined them
21:38in the Word,
21:40and though it sounds good,
21:41so we should never try
21:42to alter what God said.
21:44So, as we said,
21:46Psalm 51 is just an internal
21:48humble confession
21:49focusing on David himself
21:51and his repentance.
21:52But Psalm 58 is an external accusation
21:55focusing on wicked rulers
21:56and judges
21:57and malicious enemies
21:59who actually practice injustice.
22:03The context of Psalm 51
22:05was written after David's adultery
22:07with Bathsheba.
22:08It deals with personal moral failure
22:11and his cleansing.
22:12But Psalm 58
22:14is just a communal lament
22:17and a prayer for divine judgment
22:19against these corrupt leaders
22:20in society.
22:22But it's problematic here
22:24to blend them
22:25because it misapplies
22:27what these verses are about.
22:28It applies both statements
22:30to all human beings.
22:32But the reality is
22:33Psalm 51 only applies to David.
22:3758 is about a specific
22:39condemnation of wicked.
22:40It confuses the state of being
22:42with active choices.
22:43The blend
22:44suggests humans are born
22:45structurally broken
22:46and actively deceitful
22:47at the same moment.
22:49But the reality is
22:51Psalm 51 speaks about
22:53a passive state of origin
22:54such as shaping in iniquity.
22:58We cannot control
22:59our inherited
23:00fallen nature,
23:01the original sin
23:02that was in us.
23:03But conversely,
23:05Psalm 58 speaks of
23:06some active behavior,
23:07speaking lies.
23:08That's where you made a choice
23:10to speak lies.
23:12But newborn infants
23:13are physically
23:13and cognitively
23:15incapable
23:15of speaking
23:17and formulating lies.
23:18So the two passages
23:19really don't go together.
23:20It also invents
23:22non-existent Bible verses.
23:24And as we said,
23:25he spoke this
23:26as if the Bible
23:26said it in one sentence.
23:30People often quote
23:31born in sin,
23:32shape in iniquity,
23:34come to the world
23:35speaking lies
23:35like it's a single
23:36direct quote.
23:38But it's actually
23:39blending
23:40has created
23:41a proof text.
23:42And we're going to get
23:43into what proof texts
23:44are as we go along.
23:46But it misrepresents
23:47the actual written word.
23:49It also strips away
23:50the literary context
23:51of the whole verses.
23:53And it does that
23:53any time you blend
23:54scriptures together
23:56that are totally unrelated.
23:57Psalm 51
23:58is a prayer for mercy.
24:00Whereas Psalm 58
24:01is a cry for justice.
24:04So blending them
24:05into a single
24:07theological
24:08blanket statement
24:09it erases
24:10that deeply
24:11personal repentance
24:12of Psalm 51.
24:13Because it also says
24:15that you're also
24:16speaking lies
24:16for your mother's womb.
24:17It removes
24:18what David was feeling.
24:20And it also
24:22messes up
24:23the social
24:23justice outcry
24:25of Psalm 58
24:27as to what
24:28it was speaking about.
24:29But good Bible study,
24:31John,
24:31ask what did this
24:32first mean
24:33to the original audience?
24:35How does it fit
24:36with the rest of scripture?
24:38So blending two verses
24:39into a hybrid sentence
24:40skips those questions
24:41entirely.
24:42And also these psalms
24:43were probably written
24:44very far apart.
24:46There's where it gets
24:47to be such a huge problem.
24:48Because once
24:49the misinformation
24:50has spread,
24:51once it becomes
24:52a slogan,
24:54like this has actually
24:55become a slogan.
24:56He said it over 80 times
24:57and I heard ministers
24:58saying it repeatedly.
24:59Once it gets
25:01to the point
25:01of making a slogan,
25:02people will attach
25:04that in their memory.
25:05And even if the person
25:07were to come out
25:08and say,
25:08I was wrong,
25:09I made a mistake,
25:10I quoted these
25:11two Bible passages
25:12and I wasn't thinking,
25:14I combined them
25:15and I made the Bible
25:16say something
25:16that it didn't say.
25:18Even if the person
25:19were to do this,
25:20it's already stuck
25:21in the heads
25:21of the people.
25:22So correcting it
25:23becomes almost impossible.
25:26Think in today's world,
25:27misinformation spreading,
25:28especially for famous figures.
25:31Take somebody like,
25:33take Garth Brooks.
25:34If he were to say
25:35something about
25:35country music
25:36that's blatantly false
25:38and spread it
25:39through Facebook
25:40or Twitter
25:41or whatever
25:41and people start
25:42reading it,
25:43people will accept it,
25:44adopt it,
25:44and then suddenly
25:45this has become
25:46proven fact
25:47just because
25:48Garth Brooks said it.
25:49Well, that was happening
25:50in the religious realm.
25:52There were people
25:52who were leaders
25:54of these revivals
25:55who were saying things
25:56about the Bible
25:56that was completely false.
25:58Some of them,
25:59I think they had to have known
26:00it was completely false,
26:01but it served a purpose,
26:03an agenda
26:04that they were pushing
26:05and people adopted
26:06that agenda,
26:07but the slogans
26:08that they invented
26:09like this
26:10by combining
26:11two passages
26:12and making them
26:13say something
26:13entirely different
26:14than it said,
26:15that slogan
26:16stuck in the people's heads.
26:17So as that is spreading
26:19throughout religion,
26:21again,
26:21this creates
26:22a core foundation,
26:22a bedrock
26:23of doctrine
26:24and Branham
26:25as the leader
26:27of the revivals,
26:27he is by almost
26:29all accounts
26:29that I have read,
26:30he is the foremost leader
26:31who spearheaded
26:32the post-World War II
26:33healing revival.
26:34He was looked at
26:36as not just Garth Brooks,
26:38but far more famous.
26:39He would be
26:39the Taylor Swift
26:40of the religion.
26:42Everybody's looking
26:42to this guy.
26:43So everybody wants
26:44to quote him
26:45and these are quotable things
26:46once they become a slogan.
26:48This was a slogan
26:48in our religion,
26:49come into the world
26:50speaking lies,
26:51and it's such a ridiculous
26:52slogan when you think
26:53about it.
26:54Why would you want
26:55to focus on somebody
26:56who's speaking lies,
26:58especially when the person
26:59who's saying it
26:59is also speaking lies?
27:01So for me,
27:02I had to take a step back
27:04and I had to re-evaluate
27:05every single thing
27:06that I had learned
27:07from the man
27:08in the Bible
27:09because I found
27:10that there were
27:10many, many things
27:12that just simply
27:13were not correct.
27:14At the same time,
27:16I'm going through
27:17that exercise.
27:17My wife is creating
27:19these,
27:20she's creating
27:21all of these student programs
27:24for our children
27:24and she remembered
27:25back into her days
27:27whenever we were
27:27in the movement
27:28and she was trying
27:29to do a Bible teaching
27:31program for the students
27:33and she wanted
27:34to go through the Bible,
27:35all of the religious,
27:36all of the figures
27:36in the Bible,
27:37the famous figures
27:38and create a,
27:41you know,
27:41a program
27:42where the students
27:42could learn
27:43from not just the Bible
27:44but also William Branham
27:45and what she came
27:46to realize is
27:47he actually didn't talk
27:48about the Bible
27:48a whole lot.
27:49Most of what he talked
27:51about was himself
27:51and so she had trouble
27:53creating that
27:54for her students.
27:56After we left,
27:57she thought back to that
27:58and thought,
27:58wait a minute,
27:59most of what he said,
28:01again,
28:01was about himself
28:02but even the things
28:03that he said
28:04about the Bible,
28:05they were presented
28:06in such a way
28:07that it took them
28:08out of their context
28:09to point to himself
28:10and that was
28:11when it hit me.
28:12This served a purpose.
28:14This wasn't
28:15mere accident.
28:16He didn't accidentally
28:17take two verses
28:18and combine them.
28:19He had a strategy
28:20behind it
28:20and once you
28:22identified the strategy
28:23and then started
28:24to piece together
28:25what came next,
28:26it got,
28:27my stomach was upset.
28:29I could not believe
28:29that somebody did this
28:31and to think that
28:33this became one
28:34of God's generals
28:35in the world today,
28:36to think that there
28:36were people
28:37who respect a man
28:38who was purposefully
28:40misusing the Bible
28:41to uplift himself,
28:42it bothered me
28:44and the rest is history.
28:47You can see my website
28:47and my research
28:48why I do what I do today
28:49but this was a plague
28:51and it plagued the movement.
28:53The sad thing is
28:54it also set a precedent.
28:56Look at the ministries today,
28:57look how they misuse scripture,
28:59look how they don't care.
29:00That's exactly the precedent
29:02that was set
29:03when William Branham did this.
29:04Have you ever wondered
29:06how the Pentecostal movement started
29:08or how the progression
29:09of modern Pentecostalism
29:11transitioned through
29:12the latter reign,
29:13charismatic,
29:14and other fringe movements
29:16into the new
29:17apostolic reformation?
29:18You can learn this and more
29:20on William Branham
29:21Historical Research's website
29:23william-branham.org
29:25On the books page
29:27of the website,
29:27you can find
29:28the compiled research
29:29of John Collins,
29:31Charles Paisley,
29:32Stephen Montgomery,
29:33John McKinnon,
29:34and others
29:35with links to the paper,
29:36audio,
29:37and digital versions
29:38of each book.
29:39You can also find resources
29:41and documentation
29:42on various people
29:44and topics
29:44related to those movements.
29:46If you want to contribute
29:47to the cause,
29:48you can support the podcast
29:50by clicking
29:51the Contribute button
29:52at the top.
29:53And as always,
29:54be sure to like
29:55and subscribe
29:55to the audio
29:56or video version
29:57that you're listening to
29:58or watching.
29:59On behalf of
30:00William Branham Historical Research,
30:02we want to thank you
30:03for your support.
30:04We just can't go
30:05creating Bible verses
30:07and trying to interpret
30:08the Bible
30:09with our own
30:09private interpretation
30:11because that's just
30:12disastrous.
30:13But we see it happening
30:15in the ministry
30:16that we've been
30:16talking about here.
30:18So once a teacher,
30:19though,
30:20focusing on what
30:21the teacher's doing,
30:21once he's willing
30:22to create
30:22these hybrid verses,
30:25then the authority
30:26starts to shift.
30:27So now we're getting
30:28to what's really
30:29happening here.
30:30Scripture's no longer
30:31the final rule.
30:32It's no longer supreme.
30:33This new combined phrase
30:35becomes a new authority.
30:37People start quoting
30:38the blended version
30:40as if it were
30:41the Bible itself.
30:42And that's how
30:43extra-biblical ideas
30:44get protection
30:46because they appear
30:47to be biblical language.
30:48It's very subtle.
30:50But the safe
30:51and honest way
30:52is always the same.
30:54Read each verse
30:55in the Bible
30:55in its own context.
30:57Let the Bible speak
30:58what it actually says.
31:00So listen to what
31:01William Branham said
31:02in 1953
31:03in The Living Jesus Christ.
31:04He said,
31:05But listen,
31:06God wants us
31:07to believe His Word
31:08just like it's written there.
31:09Whosoever shall take
31:10or add to
31:12or take away,
31:13the same shall be taken
31:14out of his part
31:15of the book of life.
31:16See?
31:16So let's just believe it
31:17the way it's written.
31:19Now I say
31:19that's great advice.
31:21And he said that
31:22many times,
31:23but if you'll know,
31:24William Branham
31:25might have been
31:25saying one thing,
31:27but he was actually
31:28doing another.
31:29He did just
31:30the very opposite
31:31by speaking this
31:32from 1951
31:33to 1965.
31:35And here he is
31:35in 1953
31:36saying,
31:37We don't need
31:37to take the Bible
31:38and make it
31:39what we want it to be.
31:40We want to say it
31:40like the Bible says it.
31:43But we find out
31:44that the way
31:44he believed the Bible
31:45and the way
31:46he taught doctrine
31:47was sometimes
31:48much different
31:49than the Scripture
31:50actually meant.
31:51Here's another one
31:52in Divine Healing
31:521954.
31:53He said,
31:54I believe
31:54with all my heart
31:56that from
31:56in the beginning
31:57of Genesis
31:58to Amen
31:58and Revelation
31:59is inspired of God
32:00is every bit the truth.
32:02There's not one word
32:03of it wrong.
32:03It's all the truth.
32:04I believe
32:05every word of it.
32:06I don't want
32:07to take away
32:07or add any.
32:09So,
32:10when you blend
32:11two verses together,
32:12you're doing
32:13exactly that.
32:14You're adding
32:14to Scripture
32:15or you're taking away
32:16from the meaning
32:17of Scripture.
32:18So,
32:18I feel like
32:20he's actually
32:21guilty of the things
32:22he doesn't really
32:22want to be guilty of.
32:24And maybe this is
32:25all accidental.
32:26I can't say.
32:27But I would say
32:28in some other cases
32:29it's very intentional.
32:31He says it many times.
32:32You can go read
32:33many of his quotes
32:34about no Scriptures
32:35of private interpretation.
32:37That meant
32:38whosoever will
32:39let him come.
32:40The last book
32:40in the Bible said
32:41whosoever will
32:41let him come
32:42and he that will
32:43take away
32:44or add to
32:44the same
32:44shall be taken
32:45out of the book
32:45of life for him.
32:47That was spoken
32:47in 1960.
32:49To whom shall we go?
32:50He also said
32:52in 1958
32:52hear you hymn
32:53and the Scriptures
32:54of no private
32:55interpretation.
32:56It was wrote
32:57by the Holy Spirit.
32:58The Holy Spirit
32:59is the only one
32:59who can reveal it
33:00for is hid
33:01from the eyes
33:02of the wise
33:02and prudent
33:03and revealed
33:03to babes
33:04such as will learn.
33:07But without
33:07even knowing it
33:08William Branham
33:09really condemned
33:10himself
33:10because he constantly
33:12did this
33:13misrepresenting
33:14some scriptures
33:15and privately
33:16interpreted the
33:17scripture.
33:17But I hope and pray
33:19he did it in ignorance
33:20and not willfully
33:21because he even
33:22stated
33:23in his own ministry
33:25in 1960
33:27June the 7th
33:28hearing and receiving
33:28and acting
33:30he always questions
33:31this
33:31what does a prophet
33:32mean?
33:33It doesn't
33:34altogether mean
33:34a foreseer
33:35a foreteller
33:36a foreteller
33:36a prophet means
33:37that that is
33:39given to him
33:40to vindicate
33:41he is an interpreter
33:43of the divine word.
33:44He said again
33:45in 1960 in July
33:46what is a prophet?
33:47A divine interpreter
33:49had the divine
33:50interpretation.
33:52What does the
33:53word prophet
33:54mean in Hebrew?
33:55A divine interpreter
33:56of the written word.
33:58The word of the Lord
33:59came to the prophet
34:00or the seer
34:01I've told you the truth.
34:02That was in 1961.
34:03And I want to pause
34:04right there
34:05because this is
34:06significant.
34:07Think about this.
34:08Here's a man
34:09who is by all accounts
34:10the leader of the
34:10post-World War II
34:11healing revival
34:12who is taking
34:13Bible passages
34:14out of their context
34:16out of what they
34:16initially meant
34:17to combine them
34:19together
34:19to make them
34:20say something
34:20different than
34:21they actually say
34:22for a specific
34:23agenda.
34:24And part of that
34:25agenda as we've
34:26discussed
34:26is to say
34:28and claim
34:28that there is
34:30a restoration
34:30of the church
34:31that is happening
34:32in the end time
34:33even though that
34:34is not in the Bible
34:35that's part of
34:35this agenda.
34:36In the end time
34:37we will restore
34:38the offices of
34:39apostle, prophet,
34:40teacher, pastor,
34:40etc.
34:41He is combining
34:43these verses
34:44and he's building
34:44blocks.
34:45He's creating
34:46these building
34:46blocks of scripture
34:47to say that the
34:48church needs
34:49restored.
34:49That's what he's
34:50doing.
34:51And then he
34:52starts to create
34:53he takes the
34:55five-fold ministry
34:56concept and he
34:57turns it into
34:58this pyramid
34:59of authoritarian
35:00structure and he
35:01puts the apostle
35:02at the top
35:02and the prophet
35:03below this.
35:04And then he
35:05starts to redefine
35:07what it actually
35:08means to be a
35:08prophet.
35:09Think about that.
35:10Whenever you
35:11ask any of the
35:12followers of
35:13Branham about
35:14prophecy, they
35:15will immediately
35:15respond, yes, but
35:17he is vindicated
35:18because of healing.
35:19And those two are
35:21completely separate
35:21things.
35:22They've done the
35:22same thing.
35:23They have combined
35:24two different
35:25meanings to make
35:26a third meaning
35:27that isn't quite
35:28correct.
35:29A prophet is
35:30vindicated by
35:31whether or not
35:31the prophecy came
35:32true or not,
35:33not by the
35:33healing.
35:34That has
35:35continued in
35:36today's world.
35:36You find
35:37apostles and
35:38prophets who
35:39are making
35:39claims that
35:40God told
35:41them something.
35:41When it
35:42fails, they
35:43just say, I
35:43apologize, I
35:44was wrong, but
35:45it's still
35:46correct because.
35:47And then they'll
35:48go down this
35:48pathway to try
35:49to circular
35:51reasoning or
35:52whatever you want
35:53to call it.
35:53They'll try to
35:54make it sound
35:54like God was
35:55still speaking
35:56through them and
35:56the words came
35:57out to be
35:58false.
35:58The prophecy
35:59came out to
35:59be false.
36:00It's because the
36:01concept of what is
36:03a prophet in the
36:04movement had been
36:05redefined.
36:06And this is
36:07something that I
36:07there are many
36:08things that I
36:08can say Branham
36:09did not initiate,
36:10but I will say
36:12redefining a
36:13prophet.
36:13I've not found
36:14anybody else
36:14beside Branham
36:15who actually
36:16redefined what
36:17the prophet was.
36:18These things is
36:20said in his
36:20ministry that he's
36:22calling himself a
36:22prophet or he
36:23believes him to
36:24be.
36:24And then he's
36:25also now he's
36:27saying he's a
36:28divine interpreter
36:29of the word.
36:29So that's how he
36:30can make that leap
36:31and do the things
36:32he does with
36:32scripture.
36:33He also calls
36:34himself a private
36:35student of the
36:36word and he
36:37just got through
36:37saying which the
36:38Bible says itself
36:39is of no private
36:40interpretation.
36:41But his own
36:42private interpretation
36:43led him to make
36:44statements like this
36:46in the Church Age
36:47book, Exposition
36:49Letter C in Church
36:49Age.
36:50He said,
36:51Based on these
36:51seven visions along
36:52with rapid changes
36:53which have swept
36:54in the world in
36:55the last 50 years,
36:56I predict, I do
36:57not prophesy that
36:58these visions will
36:59have all come to
36:59pass by 1977.
37:02He said,
37:03I maintain this
37:04prediction after 30
37:05years because
37:07Jesus said no
37:08man can know the
37:08year, week or
37:10month in which his
37:11coming was to be
37:11completed.
37:12He did not say
37:13that.
37:13So that's why he
37:14thought he could
37:15guess the year.
37:16He said,
37:16So I'll repeat,
37:17I sincerely believe
37:18and maintain as a
37:19private student of
37:21the word along with
37:22divine inspiration the
37:241977 of to
37:25terminate the world
37:26systems and usher
37:27in the millennium.
37:28So here we go,
37:30him talking about
37:30himself being a
37:31private interpreter of
37:33the word having his
37:34own private
37:34interpretation and
37:36that's what led him
37:37to believe 1977 was
37:39going to end, you
37:40know, the whole world
37:40systems.
37:42So a person who
37:43interprets scripture
37:44to match their own
37:45personal desires or
37:47biases is said to
37:48practice eisegesis
37:50rather than, it
37:52makes them an
37:52eisegete rather than
37:53an exegete.
37:55Eisegete means reading
37:57personal ideas and
37:58preferences into the
37:59text rather than
38:01drawing the true
38:02meaning out of it.
38:03They're often called
38:04a scripture twister.
38:06So they also, a
38:09scripture twister is a
38:10descriptive term for
38:11someone who manipulates
38:12or forces verses out
38:14of context to suit a
38:16personal or self-serving
38:18goal.
38:18And they also use what
38:20is called proof texting
38:21by selecting isolated
38:22verses out of context
38:24to prove preconceived
38:26points and ignoring the
38:27rest of the passage.
38:29You know, William Branham
38:31also claimed he was a
38:32typologist because he
38:33had no education.
38:34So he said many times,
38:3630 times at least from
38:371953 to 64, he said,
38:39I'm not a theologian,
38:41therefore I have to
38:41teach all that I know
38:43about the Bible from
38:43types and shadows.
38:44You call me a type of,
38:46a kind of typologist.
38:50So typology is a good
38:51way to go about
38:52interpreting events,
38:53but it must be kept
38:54under strict controls
38:55to avoid drifting into
38:57unrestrained and
38:58subjective allegorizing.
39:00And it does create bad
39:01theology at times if you
39:03don't maintain those
39:03strict controls.
39:04Now I would offer the
39:06opinion that William
39:07Branham claiming to have
39:08no education and he
39:09wasn't a studied man,
39:11you know, as far as
39:11theologically, that he
39:13couldn't maintain those
39:14strict controls.
39:15So typology led him into
39:18some areas where we
39:19might shouldn't have
39:20gone.
39:21But bad typology, the
39:23dangers of it is you read
39:25imaginative connections
39:26into a text that the
39:28original authors never
39:29intended.
39:30We just saw this happen
39:31in the two Psalms that
39:32we went over.
39:33It confuses historical
39:35types with wild allegory.
39:37It adds outside features
39:39onto a biblical symbol to
39:41prove a personal point.
39:43And we'll see that as we
39:44go along too.
39:45It ignores the actual
39:47literal historical context
39:48of what the original
39:49passage was saying.
39:50So typology is really not
39:52an alternative to
39:53exegesis.
39:54It's an outgrowth from it
39:56that you can use to
39:57support exegesis.
40:00So a strict typologist
40:01performs good exegesis
40:03when they allow the
40:05grammatical historical
40:06study to uncover the
40:07real divinely designed
40:08patterns in salvation
40:10history.
40:11But typologists fail when
40:13their enthusiasm for
40:14finding patterns
40:15overrides the actual
40:17vocabulary and grammar
40:18and context of the
40:19text.
40:21Here's probably the most
40:22important thing I'll say
40:23today, John.
40:24You know, and this is it.
40:26William Branham admits
40:27that he only used
40:28typology only, exclusively,
40:31to interpret scripture
40:32due to his lack of
40:33education.
40:35His blending of two or
40:36more scriptures together
40:38make them appear what the
40:39text is saying rather than
40:40carefully telling the
40:41people what the text is
40:43saying.
40:44It shows, and this is
40:46important, it shows that
40:47he's not trying to remain
40:48faithful to the scripture.
40:50scripture, but he's using
40:51the Bible, and I think, and
40:53this is my opinion, he's
40:54using the Bible very
40:55carelessly, and it's not
40:58going to be edifying to the
40:59people in the end.
41:00We need to compare
41:01scripture with scripture
41:02carefully, not by cutting
41:03and pasting phrases into
41:05new sentences.
41:06When we refuse to blend
41:07verses this way, we protect
41:09the meaning of the text and
41:12the integrity of the
41:13doctrines, you know, we
41:15claim to believe.
41:15That's where this gets
41:17really, really difficult to
41:18untangle.
41:19Think about this.
41:20A doctrine itself might be
41:22true, but the particular
41:25arguments used to support
41:26that doctrine might be
41:28inaccurate.
41:29So, there were people who
41:30were Bible scholars who
41:32were in these revivals.
41:33Think about this.
41:34There were people who
41:35probably knew he's taking
41:37this verse out of context
41:38and this verse out of
41:39context, and he's combining
41:40them, but maybe they
41:43supported his doctrine.
41:44So, they knew that the
41:45building blocks he used
41:47was false, but the end
41:49result we maybe are
41:50aligned with.
41:51Maybe that was their way
41:52of thinking, but the
41:54building blocks still made
41:55their way into the
41:56ministry.
41:57So, as you have building
41:58blocks of false doctrine,
42:00which this clearly was,
42:02then suddenly you have the
42:04opportunity to stack more
42:05building blocks on top of
42:06it.
42:06And quite frankly, that's
42:08really the problem for me.
42:09You don't want to lay a
42:10false bedrock of false
42:12doctrine, but that's what he
42:13was doing, and worse, he
42:15said it was coming
42:16directly from God as the
42:17messenger of the hour, as
42:19he claimed.
42:20So, those same people who
42:21believed that the end
42:23result was true, they
42:24could ignore the two
42:24building blocks that were
42:26misused or misquoted when
42:28they were combined, but
42:29their agenda aligned with
42:31his and their belief in
42:32him as the end-time
42:33messenger or the Elijah of
42:35the day, they believed
42:37this, so they simply didn't
42:38care, and they let it go
42:39by.
42:39If a doctrine is truly
42:41biblical, you don't need
42:43to invent verses by
42:44combining verses to make
42:46it survive, but they were
42:48doing it, and they allowed
42:49it, and it set a precedent.
42:51Now, ministries are claiming
42:53the wildest of things, and
42:55they just loosely quote a
42:57Bible passage to believe it,
42:58and people accept it, because
43:00that is the pattern, that is
43:02the precedent that was set, and
43:03that's the pattern that has
43:04continued to be followed.
43:06You must have integrity in
43:08the doctrines, and if your
43:10doctrine is to be built on
43:11the Bible, you need to
43:12actually go to the Bible
43:13and actually find something
43:14in context that supports
43:15what you're saying, or then
43:18you have to separate it and
43:19say simply, this is my
43:20opinion.
43:21It may not be scriptural, but
43:23it's my opinion.
43:24The problem is, as I just
43:26mentioned, he could not do
43:27this because he was claiming
43:28that his ministry, his
43:30message, was a message
43:31directly from God, and in his
43:33own words, when the angel of
43:35the Lord moves down, it is
43:36God's voice to you.
43:38So people are believing that
43:39this is God's voice to them,
43:41and yet it's not quite
43:43scriptural.
43:43What do you do with this?
43:44The people who knew, the
43:46people who were listening,
43:47who knew that he was doing
43:48this, they simply didn't
43:49care because they were
43:51aligned in the agenda.
43:54John, I appreciate those
43:55comments.
43:55You know, this is a very
43:56deep subject in a way, and
43:58we're using two very simple
43:59examples to show, to
44:02illustrate the point.
44:03And I've got more to show,
44:04you know, in the next
44:05episode even.
44:06And it gets even more
44:07important as we go along,
44:08as the doctrines get far
44:11more important to the
44:12believer.
44:12But let me slow down on this
44:14point for just a minute,
44:15because it's one of the most
44:17important safeguards that we
44:18have in biblical
44:19interpretation.
44:20The principle is simple to
44:23state here, but it's very
44:24profound.
44:25We compare Scripture with
44:26Scripture very carefully,
44:28and we don't need to cut
44:29phrases out of different
44:30passages and paste them
44:31together to brand new
44:33sentences that the Bible
44:34never wrote, and the
44:36writers never intended to
44:37write.
44:37And there's a real difference
44:39between those two
44:39approaches.
44:40You know, when the New
44:41Testament writers wrote, or
44:43quote, the Old Testament, or
44:45one apostle echoes another,
44:46they're still respecting that
44:48original context and meaning.
44:49And in Paul's case, sometimes
44:51he's expounding the meaning,
44:53because we know he was the
44:54apostle that wrote most of the
44:56New Testament.
44:57And God gave him those
44:59revelations.
45:00But that's showing how God's
45:02revelation holds together into
45:04a unified whole.
45:05That's legitimate, and it's
45:07necessary.
45:07The whole Bible is one
45:09coherent story, and so we
45:12let the clearer passages shed
45:14light on the harder ones.
45:15We let the overall teaching of
45:17Scripture guide our understanding
45:18of any single verse.
45:20But that's very different from
45:22what happens when someone takes
45:23the sentence from Psalm 51 and
45:25half a sentence from Psalm 58 and
45:27welds them to a new doctrinal
45:29slogan.
45:30You know, at that point, we're
45:31no longer comparing Scripture
45:32with Scripture.
45:33We're creating a third text, a
45:35hybrid, if you will, and then
45:37treating that hybrid as if it
45:39carries the authority of the
45:41original.
45:42And once you start doing that,
45:43several things are put at risk
45:46here.
45:47First, you put at risk the actual
45:49meaning of the text of Scripture.
45:51Every verse in the Bible was
45:53written by a specific author to a
45:55specific audience, in a specific
45:57situation, using specific words.
46:00When we rearrange those words, we
46:02silence the original voices.
46:05David's confession in Psalm 51 is
46:07no longer allowed to be David's
46:09confession.
46:10The Father's declaration over his
46:11son is no longer allowed to stand
46:14as the Father spoke it.
46:17We've decided we can improve upon the
46:19wording that the Holy Spirit even
46:21inspired.
46:22Second, the integrity of the
46:24doctrines we claim to believe is
46:25put in jeopardy.
46:27I'll be hitting on this one in the
46:28next episode, but it's a major issue
46:30in the message.
46:32Sound doctrine is supposed to arise
46:34from the text, not the other way
46:36around.
46:37When we manufacture new sentences, we
46:39open the door for doctrine to start
46:41driving the interpretation instead of
46:44the interpretation of Scripture driving
46:45our doctrine.
46:46And that's how sincere people end up
46:49defending ideas, like they've defended
46:51the message, that feel very Biblical
46:53because they use Biblical words.
46:55Yet those ideas cannot actually be
46:58found in any single passage or in the
47:00careful synthesis of passages.
47:02That's why the Church has historically
47:05insisted on the analogy of Scripture,
47:09that Scripture has to interpret Scripture
47:10because it's a protection.
47:12It keeps us from turning the Bible and
47:15just to a collection of inspirational
47:16fragments that we can reassemble
47:18however we like.
47:20It forces us to stay true to Scripture,
47:23stay under the authority of what God
47:25said, rather than we can make Him appear
47:28to say something different by clever
47:30combination of Scriptures.
47:32So we refuse the shortcut of blending
47:35verses into new sentences.
47:37We're doing something deeply constructive
47:39here.
47:39We're protecting the meaning of the text.
47:42We're saying, in effect, the Bible's
47:43already sufficient, clear enough is
47:46clear, has clarity.
47:48We do not need to help it along by
47:49trying to rewrite it, trying to help
47:51God interpret it.
47:53You know, that's not a small commitment
47:55and it takes effort.
47:57It's one of the main ways we keep our
47:58teaching tethered to the Word of God
48:00rather than the teacher's creative
48:02rearrangements of it.
48:04So, John, I believe that shows the
48:06direction we're going here.
48:07And I've got a few more segments to do
48:10where William Branham blended Scriptures
48:11together, or even changed the meaning
48:14entirety of Scripture.
48:15And it means so much to our salvation
48:18and how you teach salvation.
48:20It means so much to how we teach the
48:22Lord Jesus Christ and His deity
48:24that I just got to get into it the next
48:26time.
48:27But of course, as he declared himself a
48:30prophet, as a divine student of the
48:32Word, private student of the Word, a
48:34divine interpreter of the Word, he
48:36felt he had this authority as the
48:38prophet or the divine interpreter to
48:40change the Word as he wanted to.
48:43So, I think believers in the message,
48:46they really need to step back now,
48:48take a hard look at where they have
48:49been led to.
48:51And in fact, the blending of
48:52Scriptures has produced something
48:54unheard of.
48:55You know, if they find out that it's
48:56unheard of in the Gospel of Jesus
48:58Christ, and then how we view
49:00ourselves as Christians, the message
49:02believers may be on the edge of a
49:04precipice here.
49:05They've gone out on a limb that goes
49:08nowhere, and they've lost sight of the
49:10Gospel Paul preached.
49:12They may have been able to ride the
49:14coattails of William Branham up to
49:15this point, but now they're at a
49:17crossroads.
49:18They're at a decision point.
49:20So, I really believe it's the Word that
49:22they've been given.
49:24The Word they've been given in the
49:25message will not work in this day,
49:27rather than the other way around, the
49:29way William Branham stated it, that the
49:31Word of the Apostles is what will not
49:33work in this day.
49:34You know, this is where blending
49:36Scriptures and changing the meaning
49:38leads you to.
49:39It's not a good situation to be in,
49:41John, and I want to go into that more
49:44detail next time.
49:45Absolutely.
49:46You know, if more people realize that
49:48this is how all of this mess that you
49:50see today actually began, by somebody
49:53who, in his own words, he said, I don't
49:55know the book real well, but I know the
49:57author, and yet he proceeded to be a
49:59Bible teacher.
50:00People were being taught by somebody who
50:02openly admitted that they did not know
50:04the Bible, and yet they believed him to
50:07be the messenger of God, and they
50:08believed that his voice was God's
50:10voice to them.
50:11Well, when you do this, you're taking
50:13God's voice, saying something that
50:15isn't biblical, and creating a new
50:17Bible.
50:18And in effect, that's what I would say
50:20happened here.
50:20They did create a new Bible.
50:22William Branham was bringing a message
50:25to the people, but it wasn't really
50:27God's message.
50:28And I think that's the thing that really
50:30needs to sink in, because there are
50:32ministries today, we mentioned one in
50:34previous episodes, where they're
50:37claiming God was so indwelled into
50:40William Branham that even a halo came
50:42above his head.
50:43That's what Benny Hinn says.
50:45Others say similar things.
50:46They really believe that this was God's
50:48message, because so many ministries, so
50:51many organizations, so many empires were
50:54built on top of it.
50:55And when you have something that's built
50:58on top of false doctrine, can you really
51:00say that it is a Bible-based movement?
51:02I don't know that I could say that.
51:04Now, knowing the way that he taught the
51:06Bible, I can't say that I was in a
51:08Bible-based movement.
51:09I was in a messenger-based movement.
51:11I was in a Branham-based movement.
51:12But it wasn't really a Bible-based
51:14movement.
51:15We focused all of our intention on
51:17William Branham and his message of the
51:19end-time hour.
51:20And that message of the end-time hour
51:22didn't quite align with the Bible, so he
51:24had to invent Bible verses to make it fit.
51:27For me, that's a problem.
51:29So, if you've enjoyed our show and you
51:31want more information, you can check us
51:32out on the web.
51:33You can find us at william-branham.org.
51:35For more about the dark side of the New
51:37Apostolic Reformation, you can read
51:39Weaponized Religion, From Christian
51:40Identity to the NAR.
51:42Available on Amazon, Kindle, and Audible.
52:02In the Indian Collection.
52:05In the times, you can read the name and've
52:05engineered as well. For
52:08.internatintheist.com If
52:08you go, at the search william-branham. You
52:08can find us at william-branham. In
52:27the