A Refutation of William Marrion Branham

January 19, 2009


Due to the introduction into this region of the doctrines of William Marrion Branham it has become necessary that a standard, however humble, be raised against the flood of false and self-serving doctrines that has poured into the minds of so many sincere individuals through countless publications, recorded messages and even movies.

The author has chosen the book entitled "An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages" as the basis for this refutation and shall attempt to examine the major points of this book as clearly and objectively as possible.

The author requests only your patience and your time in reading this lengthy message.

"Let God be true and every man a liar" Romans 3:4

The Seven Church Ages

"With this key, so simple, yet so wonderful, I was able, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to read the Book of Revelation and the histories and find therein each age, each messenger, the duration of each age, and the part each played in the purpose of God from Pentecost to the consummation of these ages." the Seven Church Ages, p.68 With this statement, Mr. Branham claims originality for the basis of his Church Ages teaching. Let the author point out a book entitled "The Book of Revelation" by Clarence Larkin, printed by the Erwin W. Moyer company and copyrighted as long ago as 1919, the result of 25 years of study. Upon examination of this book it will immediately become apparent that Mr. Branham's book, "The Seven Church Ages" is taken point for point and in places nearly word for word from this book written by Clarence Larkin. This is nothing short of plagiarism, and Mr. Branham makes no acknowledgement of Mr. Larkin's contribution whatsoever. The author can only encourage the reader to discover the same for himself.

Clarence Larkin, like so many others of his time, was a trinitarian, and in "The Seven Church Ages," Mr. Branham has merely switched the viewpoint to a "Oneness" stance.

It should be made clear that Mr. Branham can make no claim to the originality of the "oneness" doctrine, though he would obviously have us believe otherwise. Years before Mr. Branham began his "ministry" in 1902, Charles Parham published the first exposition of the absolute deity of Jesus Christ known in this country. This doctrine was widely believed by 1913, when, according to F.J.Ewart, it was taught at a convention in California and not long afterward Jesus' name preachers were officially excluded from the Assemblies of God Church.

It is upon the vast amount of material that Mr. Branham interpolates into Clarence Larkin's worthy study that the bulk of this refutation shall rest.

The Church Messengers: Introduction

"The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches..." Revelation 1:20 "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write..." Revelation 2:1

While Clarence Larkin chooses to describe the "seven stars" or "seven angels" as simply the ministers in each of the churches, Mr. Branham, for reasons that will later become obvious, presumes to choose a man to fill this office in each of Mr. Larkin's ages.

According to Mr. Branham these messengers are Paul, Ireneaus, Martin, Columba, Luther and Wesley, with the seventh left unnamed.

It is not the author's purpose to establish just who or what the mystery of the seven stars may represent. It is, however, his purpose to prove that, according to Mr. Branham's own methods, the persons he appoints could in no way truly be the "messengers of the church ages" excepting, of course, Paul. To put the forthcoming study into perspective, it is necessary to quote Mr. Branham.

"From the Ephesian Age on down to this Laodicean Age each messenger brought the message of truth to the people, never failing to keep it the Word of God to that particular church age. Each one held to it. They were steadfast in their loyalty to the original light. As each age pulled away from God, his faithful messenger turned that age back to the Word." the Seven Church Ages, p.58

It is by this description that we shall go on to judge these "messengers" and the reader will do well to keep these points Mr. Branham gives in mind was we proceed. Though it may now appear trivial, a peculiarity is apparent when Mr. Branham states "the Word of God to that particular age," insinuating that, in each age, God's Word may differ from that of another. This insinuation, though plainly false, could be taken as justification for a "messenger" to embrace false doctrine, as all Mr. Branham's appointees, excepting Paul, certainly do.

The following statements from Mr. Branham's book are now necessary to clarify this matter. "That original Word could not change, not even a dot or a dash of it. Paul knew it was God who had spoken to him, so he said, 'Even if I come and try to give a second revelation, try to make one little change in what I gave originally, let me be accursed.' "God can't give a first revelation, then a second revelation. If he did, He would be changing his mind." the Seven Church Ages, p.83

In the following pages we shall study these "messengers" in the light of scriptural and historical truth and in comparison with the teachings of Mr. Branham, such as those we have quoted here.

The Church Messengers: Paul

Mr. Branham promptly begins his Paul as "messenger" with a scripture of context and bent to Mr. Branham's follows: "His prophetic office, by which he received full revelation of the Word for the Gentiles, authenticated him as their apostolic messenger." Galatians 1:12-19 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." the Seven Church Ages, p.73

In this verse, Mr. Branham would have the reader to beleive that Paul was speaking of his "prophetic office," a phrase with no scriptural precedent what­ever. A simple look this verse in its entirety will prove that Paul was referring instead to the gospel. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me was not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11-12

Let us now proceed to the points in which Mr. Branham not only twists, but contradicts the Word of God in relation to the apostle Paul. "Jerusalem's council never sent Paul out, nor did it have any power or jurisdiction over him." the Seven Church Ages, p.75 A simple comparison with the following scriptures is sufficient to thoroughly contradict this statement.

"Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief among the brethren." Acts 15: 22

"And as they (Paul and Silas) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."Acts 16:4

The author encourages the reader to study these verses in context, as he is unable to include all he would like herein for lack of space. The "apostles and elders" mentioned in Acts 15:22 comprise "Jerusalem's council," as Mr. Branham calls it. It is to this council that Paul and Barnabas were sent (see Acts 15:2) to settle the question concerning circumcision.

If Paul filled the "prophetic office" as "apostolic messenger" with "full revelation of the Word for the Gentiles" such a course of action would never have been taken as the decision from a superior would never have been needed or recognized. Yet we find the same council sending Paul out with a decree for the churches, in direct contradiction of Mr. Branham's statement which we quoted earlier.

The twenty-first chapter of Acts again finds Paul before the council of Jerusalem as they give him this charge: "Do therefore this that we say unto thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing. .." Acts 21:23-24

"Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, untill that an offering should be offered for everyone of them." Acts 21:26

So the Word of God clearly disproves Mr. Bran­ham's position concerning Jerusalem's council and its authority over Paul, as it plainly had considerable power and jurisdiction over him.


Before we begin our study of the "second messenger" Ireneaus, we must dwell briefly on Polycarp, as Mr. Branham gives this man, of whom Ireneaus was a disciple, some attention in his book. As we proceed with our study, Mr. Branham will reveal himself as a blatant falsifier of history, substituting purest falsehood for historical fact, rather than as a "student and a historian" as he claims. The bizarre account of the martyrdom of Polycarp which Mr. Branham has given in his book is most likely taken from "the Acts of the Martyrs," a book of little or no historical value and even less credibility. Mr. Branham has chosen to delete much of the original account, perhaps for the sake of believability.

Of several references Mr. Branham makes to this Polycarp in his book, the most notable is found on page 190, as follows:

"When the venerable Polycarp heard that the First Christian Church of Rome was involved in pagan ceremonies and had corrupted the truth of the Gospel, he went there to implore them to change.. .He saw them celebrate the Passover under the name Easter.. . But this aged saint who had traveled 1500 miles could not arrest their downward plunge.. .Polycarp never more returned."

So begins a trail of falsification that shall wind its way throughout Mr. Branham's book, for the entire account given above is nothing but purest fiction. Concerning Polycarp and the pseudo-Christian holiday called Easter, Will Durant, one of the greatest historians of the twentieth century, relates the following;

'The Eastern churches celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan.. .the Western churches postponed the feast to the following Sunday. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, visiting Rome about 156, tried and failed to persuade Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, to have the Eastern date observed in the West; and on his return he rejected the Pope's suggestion that the Eastern churches should accept the Western date."

This is true history's account of Polycarp's only visit to Rome to which Mr. Branham refers above; made in the year of his death in order "to implore them to change." Evidently Mr. Branham not only resorts to apocrypha in order to bend history to his purposes, but his imagination as well.

Let us now proceed with an even more revealing study of the "second messenger" Ireneaeus, which now follows. "Now with all this I have not simply been a student and a historian, I have sought to be a Spiritual-minded man, and it was only with the definite approval of the Spirit of God that I chose the men I have chosen." the Seven Church Ages,p.111

Mr. Branham could only have received his "definite approval of the Spirit of God" by drawing the name of Irenaeus out of a historical hat for this man contradicts all Mr. Branham's beaming descriptions of his "messengers" which were given earlier. History points to Irenaeus as founder of a doctrine known as "apostolic succession," taught in his greatest work entitled "Against Heresies." In this book, Irenaeus repeatedly emphasizes that the only way to keep Christianity from dissolving into a thousand heresies (as it seemed in his time it would surely do) was for all Christians to wholly accept and embrace the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus asserts that true doctrine is handed down through the years solely by a teacher-to-disciple arrangement that continues untill the return of the Lord. He consequently takes it upon himself to bridge the gap between Peter, the first "pope," and Linus, supposedly the second, by stating that Peter "committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." Thus Catholicism points to Irenaeus as one of its foremost "Church fathers."

It is unnecessary to refute the "apostolic success­ion" doctrine, set forth by Irenaeus, with scripture, however, for Mr. Branham does it quite well himself. "Apostolic succession, which today abounds, is not found in the Word. It is a man-made device." ibid. p.96

Had Mr. Branham the "historian" known that his second "messenger" was in reality the very creator of this "man-made device" he would most likely have chosen someone else, for rather than having "turned that age back to the Word," Irenaeus laid instead one of the most important foundations of Catholicism. For reference, see "A History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette, p.131.

St. Patrick

As with Irenaeus, Mr. Branham begins his "study" of Columba with a spurious account of the life of St. Patrick. Mr. Branham asserts therein that the Church of Rome had no more to do with St. Patrick than it did with Joan of Arc. Unbiased history, however, proves quite the contrary, as we shall see.

As usual, Mr. Branham resorts to pious tradition in describing Patrick's escape from Ireland to his former home, where, we are told, Patrick attended "Bible school." This "Bible school." as Mr. Branham naively calls it, was in reality the Catholic seminaries of Lerins and Auxerre, where Patrick studied to be a priest. It was at Auxerre that Patrick was ordained bishop and sent off to Ireland to take the place of Palladius, who had been ordained by Pope Celestine, and sent as first bishop to the Irish believers in Christ but died the same year.

So we find St. Patrick not only immersed in Catholic doctrine, but actually ordained bishop and sent as a missionary of the "false-vine harlot" Church, as Mr. Branham aptly describes it.

Mr. Branham then relates that the Catholic Church "killed over 100,000 Christians who had over the years grown out of the original group that had come to the Lord under St. Patrick." This is a statement without an ounce of truth and which has no substantiation whatsoever; only one of many yet to follow.

It is by now quite plain that Mr. Branham prefers Church traditions which originated in the fertile imaginations of Midieval Church chroniclers to simple historical truth, as he again relies on the same myths in his version of the life of Columba. Though Mr, Branham claims that his messengers were "steadfast in loyalty to the original light" and "denounced by organizations" yet Columba, as well as Martin, was as steeped in the ways and teaching of the Roman Church as any notable figure of his time.

The reader must be reminded that in order to be ordained priest, deacon, or bishop (as Patrick, Martin and Columba were) and, more importantly, to be canonized a "saint" (as all were) only the strictest adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church is permissible. It is almost superfluous to point out how so many thousands gave their lives for daring to contradict the teachings of Roman Catholicism, while these "messengers" rested safe in its shelter.

Certainly the "definite approval of the Holy Spirit" gives no one license to pervert historical truth to one's purposes, though Mr, Branham obviously feels differently. The actual life of Columba is in reality very different from the romantic picture pious tradition paints and Mr. Branham prefers. "His hot temper drew him into many quarrels," relates a prominent historian; most notably with Finian, under whom Columba studied for the Roman priesthood, concerning a copy which Columba had made from a rare Psalter, as Finian had taken great pains to import the psalter from France and Columba, his disciple, had made the copy contrary to his instructions. He claimed the copy was his; whereupon Columba went directly to Diarmuid, King of Ireland, and sued for possession. Though Diarmuid ruled against him, Columba found revenge in the battle of Cooldrevna which he instigated when the king's soldiers captured and killed a criminal who had found sanctuary in his monastery. 3000, including the king, fell in that battle alone.

As for "steering clear of politics,"which Mr, Branham emphatically prescribes, we find that Columba, representing the Church of Rome, "gave formal benediction and inauguration to Aidan MacGabrain of Dunadd as king of Dalraida." Similarly, we later find that Columba "accompanied Aidan to Ireland and took a leading part in a council held at Druim Cetta, which determined the position of the ruler of Dalraida in relation to the king of Ireland." So the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and so much for Columba.

Finally, it should be noted that of the numerous Catholic monasteries (i,e, hermit colonies) which Columba founded throughout Scotland and Ireland, Mr. Branham refers to the most famous of these as a "Bible School." Further, Mr. Branham gives a totally inaccurate description of these monasteries by referring to them as "Gospel centered towns" whose members were "preparing to go out and serve the Lord" when in fact they were bound to their stations for life by the monastic vows.

That Columba was instrumental in the introduction of Roman Catholicism into Scotland and Ireland there is no doubt and it is for this reason Columba is a "patron saint" today. Yet, as with Patrick, Mr, Branham claims that "the papal power "eventually defiled these mission fields and destroyed the truth as it was taught by Columba." This is again, as usual, a totally untrue assertion.

It should by now be very apparent that these last three messengers in no way whatsoever "brought the message of truth to the people" or "turned that age back to the Word" despite Mr, Branham's claims to the contrary. That is, of course, unless one considers the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church to be "the message of truth."

The Church Messengers Martin

"He (Martin) was forever true to the Word of God. He fought organization. He withstood sin in high places." the Seven Church Ages, p .161

History records that Martin was the life-long dedicated disciple of St. Hilary, the Bishop of Poitiers. This Hilary was, according to the "Age of Faith," "one of the most active defenders of the Nicene Creed," the first known author of Latin hymns, and the author of twelve massive volumes struggling to prove the newly-formed Trinity doctrine. Needless to say, Martin was an imitator of Hilary in word and deed.

Similarly, Martin's allegiance to the dogmas of Catholicism was, as the "History of Christianity" emphasizes, "impeccably orthodox" as Martin served first as a monk, later as a priest, and finally as a bishop of the Roman Church. This is obviously as far from being "forever true to the Word of God" as even Mr. Branham could put this "messenger".

Actual history is based on fact, not fancy, and the true account of the life of Martin differs greatly from that given by Mr. Branham on pages 159-161 of his book. Great volumes of similar and even more "miraculous" accounts chronicle the lives of hundreds of such "saints" as Martin, and it is to these legends, rather than true history, that Mr. Branham resorts.

For example, Mr. Branham gives the following account:

"Martin never did fear the enemy regardless of who it was. Thus he went to personally face a wicked emperor who was responsible for the death of many Spirit-filled saints. But the arrogant ruler would not turn his head and speak to him. Martin again prayed. Suddenly a fire came spontaneously from the seat of the throne and the unhappy emperor vacated speedily." ibid. p.160

In perfect contradiction of the above account, the emperor of whom Mr. Branham writes was in reality Maximus, a good friend of Martin, who occasionally consulted with him at his monastery at Trier. King Maximus was never in any way "responsible for the death of many Spirit-filled saints," but rather for the execution of Priscillian, a Manichean heretic who taught universal celibacy,despite the pledge he had given Martin to spare the man. Importantly, this is the only occasion of "secular execution" (condemnation of a heretic by a state official rather than by the Church) for the next 600 years.

So once again we have in Martin a "messenger" who thoroughly contradicts Mr. Branham's representation, yet Mr. Branham has clearly ignored the facts to try to prove otherwise.

The Church Messengers: Luther & Wesley

In contrast to the previous three "messengers" it is universally acknowledged that Luther and Wesley were both instrumental in "turning that age back to the Word;" Luther for basing his doctrines on scripture rather than Catholic traditions, and Wesley for fathering a great evangelical movement.

As both Luther and Wesley are better-known figures in religious history and as neither were canonized "saints" Mr. Branham is left with nary a miracle-filled tale to resort to and is consequently more circumspect in depicting the lives of these "messengers" than he was with the previous three. Mr. Branham therefore excuses Luther's emberassing lack of "wonders, signs and miracles" by conceding that "there is no record of Martin Luther qualifying as a true prophet of God in the grand scriptural sense of that word." As for Wesley, Mr. Branham simply states that "he was a believer in the power of God and he prayed for the sick with great faith and wonderful results." What a contrast this is with Mr. Branham's depiction of the previous messengers!

In his discussion of Luther and of Wesley Mr. Branham is characteristically inaccurate, yet not so blatantly as with his previous "messengers." Studying these inaccuracies, then, would only prove superficial when compared with those which have already been covered and with those which shall follow. For the sake of brevity, then, we shall now proceed to the next section.

The Seventh Messenger

It should by now be clear to the unbiased reader that Mr. Branham has injected his "seven church Messengers" into Clarence Larkin's study of Revelations simply for the purpose of introducing himself as the seventh or "Laodicean" messenger. Mr. Branham, however, is not content to merely hold this "office" as it applied to the other "messengers" but chooses to intentionally misquote scripture to further exalt himself as follows:

"But in the days of the voice of the seventh mess­enger when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished as He hath declared unto His servants, the prophets." the Seven Church Ages, p.323

The actual wording of this verse is the "seventh angel" rather than "seventh messenger". Mr. Branham has here taken the liberty to quote this verse with the wording which his purposes dictate rather than the true. In the ministry of John the "hearts of fathers were turned to the children." "We know that because Jesus said so. But it does not say that the hearts of the children were turned to the fathers. That is yet to take place... Now this prophet upon whom the Spirit of Elijah falls will prepare the children to welcome back Jesus." the Seven Church Ages p.325

It should be noted that Jesus nowhere makes any such statement concerning John the Baptist as that which Mr. Branham claims above. Adding falsehood to falsehood, Mr. Branham now jumps at the opportunity to capitalize on Luke's failure to include the full wording of Malachi's prophecy concerning John the Baptist. Mr. Branham still fails to realize that Jesus has asserted time and time again that this "Elijah" of Malachi chapter four was John the Baptist and Jesus calls him "Elijah" simply because Malachi did the same.

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11 :13-14 Quite like the pharisees, Mr. Branham is deaf indeed to Jesus' words when they contradict his own conceits.

After going to lengths to further glorify this fictitious "Elijah-Prophet" ,without an iota of scriptural backing, Mr. Branham proceeds to quote the entire eleventh chapter of Matthew stopping short at verses 13-14 which were quoted above. Stretching falsification to its limits, Mr. Branham then claims the following;

"So we can well see from these scriptures that the prophet in Malachi 3, who was John, was NOT the prophet of Malachi 4." the Seven Church Ages, p.327

We are, at this point, simply left with two choices. Either to believe Jesus, who repeatedly claims that John the Baptist was, "if ye will receive it" none other than Elijah of Malachi 4 "which was for to come" and disbelieve William Branham or to take Jesus as nothing less than a liar and accept instead Mr. Branham's allegation that "John was NOT the prophet of Malachi 4". It is doubtlessly plain that the Branham devotee has already made his choice.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, what soever I have said unto you." John 14:26 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery... which none of the princes of this world knew... But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit..." I Corinthians 2:7-10

Just as Catholicism replaces Jesus as the "chief Shepherd" (I Peter 2:25~ and 5:4) with a "pope," so -William Branham deposes Christ, who teaches his people by the Holy Ghost, in the lives of everyone of his followers. It is also needless to say that Amos 3:7 is just what the writer of Hebrews was refering to in the verses just quoted. Mr. Branham proceeds again to do his level best to twist Bible verses to his own purposes in his discussion of Matthew 17:10-13. A close study of Mr. Branham's methods of "revelation" will prove very revealing indeed.

"Not only do we see this messenger coming before Jesus but we find that the Word speaks of Elijah coming before Jesus returns." the Seven Church Ages,p.324 Building on this falsification of Revelations 10:7, Mr. Branham now refers to Jesus' words that "Elijah shall truly first come, and restore all things" while at the same time failing to include the following verses;

"But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not...Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." Matthew 17:12-13

Mr. Branham would here have his reader to believe that Jesus was speaking above of his returning when such is plainly not the case. Verse thirteen of the seventeenth chapter of Matthew makes it clear beyond any doubt that Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist and of none other. Ignoring these facts, however, Mr. Branham states that "there is absolutely no doubt that Elijah must return before the coming of Jesus," with no basis whatsoever for such a teaching.

The Serpent's Seed

The Serpent's Seed doctrine, which we shall now study in detail, is evidently intended to be the "mystery of God" which is declared by the "seventh messenger", or rather "angel", as mentioned in Rev. 10:7. With the exception of the "seven messengers" teaching, the Serpent's Seed doctrine is the only "revelation" of any originality whatsoever in Mr. Branham's book and so we shall examine this doctrine first.

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Genesis 2:8-9

"And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine." Ezekiel 47:12

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Revelations 22:2

"THE TREE IN THE GARDEN HAS TO BE JESUS." the Seven Church Ages, p.98

In Revelations 2:7 Jesus promises to "him that overcometh" "to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."

In his book, Mr. Branham takes this verse end promptly refers to it as a "figure of speech" end claims that it "symbolizes" something. However, the verses quoted above make it quite plain in detail just what the tree of life is, where it is, and what purpose it serves. Nowhere in the Bible is it even obscurely hinted that this tree could in any way "symbolize" something, as Mr. Branham maintains.

Building on this false assumption, however, Mr. Branham goes on to state the following;

"But what is the Tree of Life? Well, first of all we would have to know that the tree itself stands for. In Numbers 24:6, as Balaam described Israel, he said they were "trees of lign aloes which the Lord hath planted." ibid. p.97

Let us now quote this interesting verse in Numbers exactly as it appears in the Bible.

"As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters." Numbers 24:6 Mr. Branham has simply chosen to delete the small but important word "as" from the verse in Numbers quoted above, as he struggles to bend the Word of God to his purposes. Needless to say, there is certainly a great difference between being a tree, as Mr. Branham alleges, and being a tree, as the Bibles states. Mr. Branham then adds falsehood to falsehood and concludes that "Thus the tree of Life must be the Person of Life, and that is Jesus."

Mr. Branham, however, has somewhat to say about this practice of excluding words from scripture as he speaks of the seventh or "Laodicean" "messenger."

"HE WILL BE IN THAT WORD AS GOD GAVE IT TO PAUL. HE WON'T DEVIATE FROM THAT WORD FOR A MOMENT, NOT BY ONE IOTA." the Seven Church Ages p.84 "...this anti-Word, anti-christ spirit... is the changing of even just ONE word by taking away or adding to it." ibid. p.85

The obvious connection is left to the reader to make for himself.

Mr. Branham again attempts to inject his doctrines into the Word of God by describing Jesus as "the Bread of life, the Well of Life, the Eternal One, the TREE OF LIFE. " ibid. p. 98 Despite the capitalization of the last three words above, Mr. Branham presents no basis, scriptural or otherwise, for equating the "TREE OF LIFE" with Jesus Christ simply because, no matter how many times he may claim the contrary, none exists.

"Alright. If the Tree of Life is a person, then the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a person ALSO. It can't be otherwise. Thus the Righteous One and the Wicked One stood side by side there in the midst of the Garden of Eden. Ezek.28113a "Thou (Satan) hast been in Eden, the Garden of God."

Here is where we receive the true revelation of the "Serpent's Seed." ibid. p.98

It is now apparent that Mr. Branham feels that his words hold more weight than God's, for building on the totally unbiblical assumption that the tree of life is a person, he now declares that the tree of knowledge of good and evil "is a person ALSO." Mr. Branham takes the utmost advantage of his readers' ignorance of the Bible, for the entire 28th chapter of Ezekiel makes no mention whatsoever of any kind of "tree." Ezekiel rather makes it very clear that he is speaking instead of the "king of Tyrus" as "the annointed cherub that covereth", whether this refers to Satan or not. As for "receiving the true revelation of the 'Serpent's Seed,'' let the reader be reminded again of the following statement from Mr. Branham's book, quoted previously under the "Church Messengers Introduction";

"That original Word could not change, not even a dot or a dash of it. Paul knew that it was God who had spoken to him, so he said, "Even if I come and try to give a second revelation, try to make one little change in what I gave originally, let me be accursed."

"God can't give a first revelation, then a second revelation, If he did, He would be changing his mind." the Seven Church Ages, p.83

Referring to the quote on the previous page we notice also that the Laodicean messenger (whoever that may be) will deviate "NOT BY ONE IOTA" the which God gave to the apostle Paul. Either God changed his mind after all or William Branham is indeed accursed for this "revelation of the Serpent's Seed" can be nothing other than a "second revelation". Paul does not even so much as mention anywhere either the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, the only reference to either in the entire new testament is found in the Book of Revelation, written long after Paul's death. Mr. Branham is left with no biblical basis for his teachings thus far, and, more importantly, with nary even a reference to the same ideas by the apostle Paul, against whose teachings we are to compare any "revelation." .

Where then did the "Serpent's Seed" doctrine originate? Mr. Branham himself quite plainly reveals the origins of this doctrine in the following quote;

"It is almost universal amongst the various uncultured tribes that the snake is associated with sex and often worshipped in conjunction with it. The study of sexology brings that out in many instances. Now I would like to know where these people got that from seeing they are uneducated and never read the Bible. But even as the story of the flood is known throughout the world, so is this truth of the fall of man known. They knew what happened in Eden." ibid. p.106

Here, according to Mr. Branham himself, we have the true origins of the "Serpent's Seed" doctrine; that is, "amongst the various uncultured tribes" which worship snakes because "they knew what happened in Eden." Mr. Branham's honesty, though commendable, is here quite unexpected and certainly not customary. We also learn that Mr. Branham is apparently quite familiar with studying human sexual behavior, or "sexology" (certainly a worthwhile pastime for a "great prophet") from which he also derives his teaching.

As if wresting the scripture was not enough, Mr. Branham has now regressed to delving into "sexology" and basing his doctrines on the supposed beliefs of idolatrous and ignorant tribes that have "never read the Bible." Mr. Branham evidently assumes that his readers are of somewhat similar stock, for he insinuates that if these "tribes" were educated and could read the Bible, they would naturally associate snakes with sex; of course, the Bible nowhere even hints at such an idiotic association.

"Here is what really happened in the Garden of Eden. The Word says that Eve was beguiled by the serpent. She was actually seduced by the serpent." the Seven Church Ages,p.98

If we are to take Mr. Branham literally at this point we are to discard the Word of God in II Cor. 11:3 ("the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty") and substitute "seduced" for "beguiled." As this is certainly deviating from "THAT WORD EXACTLY AS GOD GAVE IT TO PAUL" by more than just one iota, let us examine this substitution in the light of scripture. "Beguiled," in the New Testament, is taken from the Greek word "exapatao". This word in no way even implies "seduced" in the sexual sense (as Mr. Branham would have it) but rather simply means "deceived". The only times this same word is again used in the New Testament are I Thes. 2:3 ("Let no man deceive you by any means") and I Cor.3:18 ("Let no man deceive himself") Applying Mr. Branham's interpretation to these verses is at best ludicrous.

Even more revealing, however, is the Old Testament use of this word in Genesis 3:13 ("The serpent beguiled me and I did eat"). "Beguiled" here is translated from the Hebrew word "nasha", meaning simply, to "delude." The same word is used in Isaiah, "the princes of Noph are greatly deceived," twice in Jeremiah, "thou hast greatly deceived this people," "thy terribleness hath deceived thee" and twice again in Obadiah, verses) and 7.

Plainly, then, the verse to which Mr. Branham refers above is in no way intended to be taken as he "interprets" it, as "seduced." Perhaps Mr. Branham has been studying sexology too much.

Mr. Branham now launches into his most utterly ridiculous and obscene teaching yet, which he describes as "one of the mysteries of God that has remained hidden but here it is revealed, namely, that "man and animal did mingle." Let the author again assure the reader that no such mystery whatsoever is spoken of by the apostle Paul, or anywhere else in the Bible, for that matter. The mysteries which Paul reveals are the mystery of iniquity (II Thes. 2:7) ,the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16) and the mystery of the "rapture" (1 Cor. 15:51). This "revelation" Mr. Branham now attempts to reveal could only be, again, nothing other than a "second revelation."

"This beast was so close to a human being(and yet was pure animal) that he could reason and talk. He was an upright creature and was somewhat in between a chimpanzee and a man, but closer to man. He was so close to being a human that his seed could, and did mingle with that of the woman and cause her to conceive." the Seven Church Ages, p. 98-99

Mr, Branham has here again displayed an almost amazing ignorance and has completely departed from even common sense in attempting to further his "Serpent's Seed" doctrine. Mr. Branham would have his reader to believe that the serpents of Genesis 3 was some strange half-human creature rather than simply a serpent as described in the Bible. He has apparently acquired this misimpression from Genesis 3:1, which states that "the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field." The use of the word "beast" here in relation to the serpent has caused Mr. Branham to embark on a metaphysical pipe-dream in which he has invented the mythical creature he describes above.

A brief look at the Bible word "beast" in the original Hebrew is sufficient to end the completely false notion Mr, Branham has set forth. "Beast" in Genesis 3:1 is from the Hebrew word "ehay", which simply means "to be alive." This same word is used again in Genesis 43:7, "ls your father yet alive?", and several times (33 times, to be exact) again as "alive" in the Old Testament. "Beast" is simply King James English for any living thing, and was so translated here in Genesis. Mr. Branham has no basis, scriptural or otherwise, for his outlandish description of the serpent of Genesis, It is quite safe to say that no such creature ever has existed, unless, perhaps, one is a believer in some twisted kind of evolution.

Needless to say, it is genetically impossible for a serpent, or any other creature as well, to produce half-human offspring by mating with a human being and purest folly to in any way assume or, even worse, to teach the same. The author considers it pointless to offer substantiation to this statement as only the most hopelessly ignorant could in any way believe such a teaching. The author can only hope that he is not herein addressing such an individual.

"Cain was of (born of, begotten of) that "Wicked One." the Seven Church Ages, p.100

Here again we find Mr. Branham injecting more than just iotas into the Word of God, as he wrests I John 3:12. 'The word "of" used in this verse is from the same Greek word which is used everywhere else in the New Testament as "of" and in itself this word has no reference to parentage or geneology, though Mr. Branham seems to feel differently. A look at the wording of this verse in first John in its true context is again sufficient to refute Mr. Branham. I John 3:8 states similarly that "He that committeth sin is of the devil." The Branham believer, inserting Mr. Branham's interpolation above into this verse, can only conclude that all sinners are quite directly fathered by a "chimpanzee-like" serpent.

But what has Jesus to say of all this? In the book of John 8:44 we find Jesus directing to the Jews the words "Ye are of your father the devil." Only a few verses later we find Him saying, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day." How can this be? If we are to believe Mr. Branham's "revelation" we can only take the word of the Lord as contradictory but if we instead take this "of" as simply indicating affinity we shall be able to see this verse as God intended.

"Since THREE sons were born from TWO acts by Adam, you know POSITIVELY that ONE of those three WAS NOT the son of Adam." ibid. p.10l

Here again we are expected to throw aside common sense and even scriptural example and blindly absorb this allegation Mr. Branham now presents. When three sons are born of two paternal "acts" you know positively that two are simply twins. The fact that Cain and Abel were twins is readily acknowledged by Mr. Branaham himself, though he goes to great lengths to have his readers believe, by his word only and without any biblical support, that both had different fathers. Instead of relying on the Word, Mr. Branham chooses to support this teaching with an account of an illegitimate birth from Norway and another from Texas. To attempt to disprove these accounts would be irrelevant when only a brief look at the Word of God is sufficient to refute Mr. Branham's claims concerning Cain and Abel. Certainly the story of Jacob and Esau is familiar to all, and there is no need here to quote the scripture at length concerning the birth of both. Suffice it to say, then, that with the example of these two sons of Isaac we have an almost exact parallel to Cain and Abel. It was entirely due to the election of God, as the book of Romans makes clear, and not to illegitimate parentage, that of these twins God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." Scripture labels Jacob the "chosen of God" while calling Esau a "profane person". Further, Esau actively sought to kill his twin brother (Gen. 27:41) exactly as Cain succeeded in doing.

Mr. Branham teaches that comparing Cains' wickedness with Abel's righteousness is enough to prove that both could not possibly be brothers. If this were the case, however, the same would be true of Jacob and Esau though the Bible proves the contrary. Let the author remind the reader again that it is only by Scripture that we can receive any enlightenment concerning the story of Cain and Abel and certainly not by the illicit affairs of women in Norway and Texas.

"To those who think this is not possible, let it be known that the medical records are replete with cases where women have carried twins who were of separate ova and separate insemination with the fer­tilization being days apart, and NOT ONLY SO, but some of the records show that the twins were fathered by separate males." the Seven Church Ages, p.l01

Mr. Branham has now reached the point where he would have his reader to trust in absolute falsehood. A consultation with any doctor of obstetrics will prove that the statement above is nothing less than a lie.

It is again apparent how low Mr. Branham will stoop to promulgate his Serpent's Seed doctrine, avoiding the scripture entirely to do so, as he must, since the Bible provides him with no support whatsoever.

"Do you know that you can take the embryo cells from an unborn fetus and inject them into human beings? Then those thyroid cells will go right to the human thyroid, the kidney cells will go right to the human kidneys. Do you realize how stupendous this is?"

ibid. p.102 Not only is Mr. Branham's entire statement stupendous, it is also purest fallacy.

The current research into organ and tissue transplants has been quite revealing and a brief look into the results of that research is now in order. Any direct introduction into the human body of cells, organs or tissue (embryo or otherwise) triggers an immediate reaction. The alien cells are recognized by the "lymphocytes" as "antigens," whereupon the lymphocytes transform themselves into "immunoblasts" which perform the function of recognizing and destroying such alien cells immediately. As in such common diseases as measles lymphocytes are capable of recognizing and destroying such germs, after they have been "programmed" to do so, for life. This same reaction takes place when lymphocytes come into contact with any other alien cells, as in the case of "embryo cells from an unborn fetus."

It is also quite true that the direct introduction into the circulatory system of any foreign cellular matter (excluding, of course, blood cells) would most likely cause immediate death due to the blockage of capillaries in the heart and/or the brain. The information above is easily available, and the author can only encourage the reader to research the same for himself.

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake..." Genesis 3:17

Mr. Branham's account of the transgression of Adam is, of course, entirely different from that given by the scriptures above. Mr. Branham would have us believe that the sin of Adam was not that he "partook of the fruit" with Eve, as Genesis 3:6 makes quite clear, but that he refused to divorce her. He states that Adam knew God's law "EXACTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN IN OUR BIBLE", (which is again a totally unfounded, unbiblical teaching) and therefore knew that Eve was guilty of adultery and should not be taken back.

Even if Mr. Branham's version of this story were true, Adam would not have been guilty of "taking her back" (as God commanded Hosea to do with his adulterous wife) but rather that he did not immediately kill both Eve and the serpent for Leviticus 20:16 clearly prescribes death for both parties involved in adultery.

Genesis 3:17, again, makes it very clear that Mr. Branham's version of the transgression of Adam is without an ounce of truth. Mr. Branham is not only adding to, but thoroughly and blatantly contradicting, the Word of God.

Applying Mr. Branham's version of the Adam and Eve story to Genesis 3:6, one is forced to conclude that not only was Eve "seduced" into sexual relations with that "almost human" serpent, but Adam as well, making Adam guilty of homosexual relations. Such a thought is nothing less than abominable, though it is the only possible conclusion one could make from Mr. Branham's teachings.

If Cain were the son of Adam it would be said of him somewhere that,"Cain, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." the Seven Church Ages, p. 105 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." Genesis 4:1 Here, Mr. Branham dictates that if the Bible would somewhere give the account which he gives in the above quote, then Cain would certainly be a child of Adam; but since it fails to do so, therefore Cain is an illegitimate.

However, the geneology of Cain is not given in the Bible simply because it ends in the flood (whether or not Cain had the "right to the lineage", as Mr. Branham puts it) and it is as simple as that. Genesis 4:1, above, makes it very explicit just who Cain's father was, no matter how much Mr. Branham will distort truth to try to prove otherwise. This verse is quite sufficient proof to anyone who sincerely believes the Word of God that Adam was indeed Cain's father.

"The fact is that though Eve was the mother of all living, Adam was not the father of all living." the Seven Church Ages,p.l05

"For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold..." Acts 17:28-29

Mr. Branham has again attempted to erode a fundamental Bible teaching; namely, that all mankind descends from God through Adam. The universal paternity of God is so plain, however, that Paul does not hesitate to quote an Athenian poet in asserting that since man does indeed descend from God, we ought not therefore to worship man-made idols. It is left to the reader to decide whether Mr. Branham is again guilty of perverting the Word or whether Paul has given the Athenians what can only be a half-truth.

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son and called his name Seth: For God, said she, appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." Genesis 4:26 "In Gen. 4:1 Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord'. She does not credit Adam with the fatherhood of Cain. She does not say God had GIVEN her another seed - that would have been Christ, for HE is GIVEN... then she says ANOTHER SEED instead of Abel,she is saying that Cain was different from Abel, for if they were of the same father she would have had to say,' I have been given some MORE SEED." the Seven Church Ages,p.105-10

The absolute absurdity of Mr. Branham's claims above is, as usual, plainly revealed by a simple look at the Word of God. When Eve states," I have gotten a man from the Lord" she is not crediting anyone with the fatherhood of Cain, but merely acknowledging that the child was a gift from the Lord. Similarly, in Genesis 29:33, Leah states "because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also", and in Genesis 30:6 Rachel says the same of her son Dan. Apparently Mr. Branham must feel that this is a confession of adultery on behalf of Leah and Rachel.

Or perhaps when Leah and Rachel state that their sons were "given" they were both claiming that their sons were the Christ, for HE is GIVEN."

Mr. Branham further dictates that Eve should say "some MORE SEED" rather than "another seed" in order to prove that Cain and Abel were both fathered by Adam. Genesis 4:1, which was quoted previously, is sufficient proof of the paternity of Cain, though it plainly makes not a whit of difference to Mr. Branham. A brief look at the names of Cain and Abel will shed more light on the subject, however.

The name of Cain means simply "a lance" while Abel's name means "uselessness" or "vanity". The reasoning behind this naming is quite plain, for Cain, being born first, was naturally expected to be the "seed of the woman" which God had promised. It would then be his place, as the "lance", to bruise the head of the serpent; even as the Egyptian savior-god Horus (who the Isrealites worshipped as the golden calf) is often depicted piercing the head of the serpent.with his lance. As no such lofty purpose was left for Abel, he was named accordingly. Of course, if Adam and Eve had been aware, as Mr. Branham claims, that Cain had been born of adultery (or is it sodomy) while Abel was true-born the naming of these brothers would have been very different, if not reversed.

In concluding his "exposition" of the Serpent's Seed doctrine, Mr. Branham, interestingly, relates the following;

"He that is guilty in ONE point of the law has broken the WHOLE law. Don't fool with that Word." the Seven Church Ages,p.l07 It is certainly a pity that Mr. Branham ignores his own advice.

Eternal Hell

Though not as lengthy as the Serpent's Seed doctrine, equally prominent in Mr. Branham's sizable repertory of falsehood is his doctrine concerning eternal hell. The Branham believer, enjoying the bogus consolations of this doctrine, must indeed pity the less fortunate soul who chooses instead to believe God's Word no matter how unpleasant it may at times seem.

"But I stand here on the authority of the Word of God and deny that the unbeliever goes to an eternal hell and burns there eternally. In the first place hell, or the lake of fire, or whatever you want to call it is not eternal." the Seven Church Ages,p.134

"...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels... And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:41-46

Mr. Branham apparently feels that falsification is the stuff that "prophet-messengers" are made of, for as is his custom, he again brings forth another "revelation" by meticulously contradicting the Word of God.

It should first be made clear that the New Testament words "eternal" and "everlasting" are both translated from the same Greek word, which is "aionios" meaning "perpetual" or "never-ending". This is not to be confused with the Greek word "aion" which some simply translate as "age". This word "aion" is never translated as "everlasting" and only twice as "eternal," neither time in reference to punishment (Eph.3:11 , I Tim.l :17).

"Aionios", however, is used numerous times throughout the New Testament, primarily in the phrase "eternal life". It is also used in reference to the lake of fire in Matthew 18:8 ("be cast into ... everlasting fire"), Jude verse 7 ("suffering the venge­ance of eternal fire") and Matthew 25:41, as quoted above. This word is also used in Hebrews 6:2, Mark 3:29, II Thessalonians 1:9 and Matthew 25:46 as "eternal judgment,"" eternal damnation," "everlasting destruction" and as "everlasting punishment" as quoted above, respectively. Grasping for some basis for his statement quoted above, Mr. Branham leaves the New Testament entirely and refers to a verse in Samuel which states "Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifices or offering forever." (I Samuel 3:13) Mr. Branham then states the following concerning this verse;

"Here in this case the word everlasting means 'to the vanishing point.' That is what happened. They vanished." the Seven Church Ages, p.134

Firstly, the above statement is absolutely nonsensical, for the word "everlasting" is not even used in this verse to which Mr. Branham is referring, or in any other verse in First Samuel, for that matter.

Secondly, the word "Forever" in this verse in First Samuel has nothing whatsoever to do with the New Testament "eternal" or "everlasting" with which we are concerned. Adding absurdity to absurdity Mr. Branham refers next to II. Thessalonians 1: 9 ("Who with everlasting destruction") and then states the following concerning this verse;

"Now 'destroying' means something going on and on in decay. So what can everlasting annihilation mean? It doesn't mean to keep on annihilating, or that would make the word 'destroying' instead of 'destruction'. It means to destroy to the ending point. End it." ibid. p.134

Mr. Branham has now claimed that because this verse in II Thessalonians uses the words "everlasting destruction" rather than "destroying" it does not therefore mean "everlasting destruction" but rather means "to destroy to the ending point." Mr. Branham's statement here is hard to refute; not because it is true, but rather because it makes no sense. II Thes. 1:9 does not use the words "destroying" simply because the author, Paul, used instead "everlasting destruction". Whether or not destruction means annihilation is beside the point, for whatever it is, it is indeed everlasting and definitely is not "to the ending point", as Mr. Branham claims.

"Now if a sinner is going to go to hell and then suffer the same as you are going to in heaven, then he has the same kind of life you have already. " ibid. p .134

The author is here unable to refute Mr. Branham's curious statement above because it is completely unintelligible. "But the fearful, and unbelieving... and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. .." Revelations 21:8

Concerning this lake of fire, Mr. Branham relates the following;

"I don't know how long it will last, but it will eventually be removed. In Rev. 21 :8, it says that those sinners mentioned will have their part in the lake of fire. But the true interpretation of the word is not part. but it is 'time.' See, there you have it" the Sev en Church Ages,p.135

Though Mr. Branham evidently intends to shorten his stay in the lake of fire the fact remains that that fire will definitely never "be removed". If Matthew 18:8 and 5:41 and Jude, verse 7, all quoted earlier, are not enough to make this fact plain there is always the following verse;

"...it is better for thee to enter halt into life, having two feet to be cast into hell, into the that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:45-46

Finally, the word "part" of Revelations 21:8 to which Mr. Branham refers above is taken from the Greek word "meros" which means "division, share, piece, portion or allotment." Meant to contrast with Rev. 21:7 which states that "he that over cometh shall inherit all things," the intended implication of this word is actually "inheritance."

Contrary to Mr. Branham's claim, this word does not even remotely insinuate "time" in any way whatsoever. Of the nineteen times this same word is again used in the New Testament the most notable is Revelations 20:6 which states "Blessed is and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection." It is certainly a good thing that Mr. Branham's "true interpretation" is rather his usual "perversion" instead.

Speaking with Tongues

In this refutation, the author has dealt only with the major and most blatantly false points contained in Mr. Branham's book. Considerable material must remain uncovered for the sake of brevity.

One point which should be briefly covered, however, is Mr. Branham's teaching that speaking in tongues is not, as the "Pentecostals" claim, the "initial evidence" of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He asserts instead that the true evidence of Spirit baptism is "HEARING AND RECEIVING WHAT THE MESSENGER HAS ALREADY RECEIVED FROM GOD."

Mr. Branham's obvious purpose with this doctrine, other than that of maligning the unfortunate "Pentecostals," is simply to further exalt himself as the "sole souree of God's Word for this age." Indeed, it should by now be quite apparent, at least to the impartial reader, that this is the whole underlying purpose behind Mr. Branham's "Exposition of the Seven Church .Ages."

The author, however, shall refrain from refuting this erroneous doctrine in detail, as he has done with the "Serpent's Seed" and "Eternal Hell" lest he appear to merely be defending his own beliefs or the beliefs of others. It shall only be noted that were Mr. Branram's doctrine concerning the evidence of Holy Ghost baptism true, it can only follow that in the days of such "messengers" as Columba and Martin, all who held the Roman Catholic faith were nothing less than true Spirit-filled believers. Though Mr. Branham has again thoroughly contradicted himself, he attempts to excuse this confusing ambiguity by repeatedly using the phrase "God's Word to that age," thereby implying that God changes His Word from time to time. The Branham believer must then assume that God," with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning," changed his form of manifestation from Jesus to the so-called Trinity and then back to Jesus again as the tenets of His "Seven Church Messengers" changed from age to age. This is but another example of the absolute senselessness of Mr. Branham's teachings.


For the Branham believer who may be foolish enough to still cling to "vindication," believing that Mr. Branham's manifestation of spiritual gifts outweighs his massacre of God's Word, the author would like to point out the following quote;

"How can you tell tbe spirits apart? Just give them the Word test... God never placed signs ahead of the Word." "The Seven Church Ages", p. 175-6

As we have already seen, Mr. Branham has failed his "Word-test" miserably.

The "Exposition of the Seven Church Ages" by William Branham is an exposition instead of half-truth, plagiarism, falsification, contradiction, unrestrained wresting of God's Word, and outright lies.

It is by now clear that even according to his own standards Mr. Branham has thoroughly disqualified himself from his sham "Prophet-messenger" position. Mr. Branham has not in any way "turned this age back to the Word" but has instead in this book alone turned the hearts of his followers from Bible truth into what are doubtlessly some of the most obscene and perverted doctrines to ever come under the banner of Christianity.

The "Exposition of the Seven Church Ages" is, if nothing else, a vivid example of just how deep into falsehood the lust for exaltation can lead what was once a great man of God. It should be noted that this refutation, the result of many, many hours of work, was initiated, carried out and completed under the author's own volition and by him alone, though thanks are due for the assistance of several who shall remain unnamed.

This refutation is not in any way intended to belittle or castiigate the Branham believer but rather was executed in hope that he would herewith "turn from these vanities unto the living God", leaving behind the idols of false doctrine forever, as Jacob did at the oak near Shechem.

To see more documents/articles regarding this group/organization/subject click here.