Richard Gan-William Branham
Singapore False Teacher/Deceiver
Richard Gan is hot, stomach in a toss, I mean he is spewing, like a person
in a fever who cannot hold down the puke!
Mr. Gan is a Singapore native who fell into Branhamism many years ago.
Today, he hails himself somewhat as a replacement of Brahnam in matters
of what he believes is revelation. Branham went to the second twilight zone
but Gan has gone to the third: woopie, woopie, woopie, woopie, you just crossed
over the time warp into Ganland.
Gan is so angry that I posted this page about him. I offered to debate
him in public but he has refused to accept. Lord willing I will be
near him in December and he can come to the Philippines and show his face
and push his false doctrines right in front of me. Gan accuses me of
being mean, cruel, unchristain, unloving, proud, and several other adjectives.
The fact is, as a Bishop I am doing my duty to expose false teachers. If
I err in any of my assertions about him, he has himself to blame. My
comments about him comes from the articles on his own internet pages. Unless
he has revised them which it appears from some of the dates he did. But what
he revised I do not know, unlike him wanting to save all my files, I did
not clutter my hard drive with his mess.
Gan is a trickster, a false teacher, a Branhamite, who just could not keep
his fingers out of the pie. He runs the world like a geek on a skateboard,
to teach his own brand of Branhamism, while correcting Brahnam, and while
saying Braham was false on this or that. But, my how he spreads that
serpent seed heresy. Now Singapore is a land of myths, legends, and
all sorts of gods and creatures. Gan has all this integrated into his
belief system and so it is no wonder he would fall for Branhamism. I
mean a land where men are gods would be an easy womb for Branhamites such
as Gan to be born. Ok, Gan is angry, mad, and calling all sorts of
names. But hear ye, hear ye, I will not be intimidated. What
I have written I have written. The man is a transvestite and believes
its ok for men to wear skirts and dresses and women to wear pants. He
is rather peachy about this. I mean he is quite feminine about it.
I mean he is absolutely a sissy. I call him to repent of his
evil and his sins. I call him to come out of that Branham mess, come
out of all of it. If he rjectes my voice and call, he will die lost.
Richard Gan, self-proclaimed prophet, teacher, William Braham apologist,
and fantastic distorter, visited Malawi in March 2004 to spread the false
doctrine of the serpent seed and other Branham heresies.
Gan is a believer in the serpent seed doctrine of the Kabbalah which William
Branham made famous among a generation of miracle seekers. The serpent
seed doctrine in a nut-shell is that Eve and the serpent had sex and this
is when Eve ate of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden. Gan
and Branham teach that the tree in the midst of the garden of good and evil
was the devil. That when Eve ate of the fruit of this tree she had
sex with the serpent's fruit which was his sex organ (they translate "eat
and ate" to mean to partake of).
Branhamites teach that God told Adam not to have sex with the serpent when
God told him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. So, God was telling Adam not to have a homosexual relationship with
the devil according to Gan and Branhamites. According to Gan and Branham,
Eve's body is a garden and the serpent's body is a garden each have a fruit
in the midst of their garden-body. Eve ate (partook) of the serpent's fruit.
She had sex with the devil. According to them Eve partook of the serpent's
fruit and she conceived and Cain was the result of her adultery. They claim
Cain then had the seed of the serpent which they claim is the seed of fallen
angels. So, all who descended from Cain were the seed of the accursed fallen
angels, which is identified as the serpent seed. None of this accursed seed
can be saved because there is no salvation for the fallen angelic seed.
This launches Gan into the heresy of Branhamite pre-destination of two seeds
(fallen angelic and Adamic). Gan claims some people are born
saved (Adamic seed) and some born damned (fallen angelic seed),
depending upon the lineage of a person's seed. Neither seed can cross over
into the category of the other seed. To Gan and Branham, Calvary was
only partial. Jesus did not die for all mankind, only the seed of Adam.
Those who are the seed of the serpent (descendants of fallen
angels), have no salvation or hope of eternal life. This is the scary
threat Gan and Branhamites use to strike fear into the ears of listeners.
If they reject Branham when he was verified by miracles this proves they
are the serpent seed. Indeed, the secret weapon of fear is used by
Gan and other Branhamites. They tell those they preach to: accept Branham
and you are of the good seed; reject Branham and you are of the serpent's
seed. No plan of salvation needed here in Christ, it's all in Branham!
According to Gan and Branhamites, salvation was guaranteed and predestinated
to Adam's seed before the foundation of the world. All a person
of Adam's seed needs to do is accept William Branham and confess him as the
prophet Elijah, or Branham Christ, or Lord Branham Christ, as their Saviour
and they are saved. Then these converts are taught to claim they are
saved by Jesus because they were predestinated in, owing to nothing they
have done (saved by grace they say).
According to Gan and other serpent seed preachers,
this seed of the serpent are fallen angels who inhabited the world before
God made Adam. In the image on the left there are the angels before
they fell under Lucifer. Then they are brown-black man type creatures
after the fall. According to Gan and Branhamites, these pre-historic man-like
beings are the missing link scientist are looking for in the evolutional
chain of man's existence. It is claimed the skeletons of these fallen angelic
beings were the black and negro people. This is forced upon the black races
because all the oldest of these so-called prehistoric skeletons found are
negroid. Wonder why all images of satan picture him as a black-man
figure?
Gan and other Branhamites teach this angelic pre-Adamic race were not created
in God's image. They of course quote Isaiah 45:18 as their proof text. But
does the Bible speak of mankind before Adam? Does it say fallen angels
became man-like and inhabited the earth having sex and multiplying before
Adam? Does the Bible say any where there were or are male and female angels
who can reproduce? Does not this heresy slap Jesus in the face when he said
angels in heaven do not marry or are given in marriage (Matt 22:30)?
According to Gan and Branhamites, after the fall of satan these angels became
beast creatures with a man-like body and this is when the devil became the
serpent. YEs Gan I drew the red lines to show the world your connection of
fallen angels to black people and the pre-human race that the serpent came
into the garden as. Yes, Gan, you claim this is the source of the serpent
seed and I will debate you on it. According to Gan and other Branhamites
these angelic creatures could have sex and reproduce. Gan claims the
serpent was one of these man-like beings who was not a man but he could still
have sex and get Eve pregnant. Two different kinds mingled according to Gan.
Gan confesses this devil-serpent being was not made in the image of God like
Adam and Eve. In spite of these bodily differences, Gan still claims the
serpent is the devil from the fallen pre-Adamic race and Eve committed
fornication/adultery with him.
Many serpent seed preachers believed this pre-Adamic serpent seed race was
where the black negroes came from. I have a tape to prove it (no
you can't have a copy, you can listen to it only in my presence). They
taught white racism, that whites are the true seed of Adam. Serpent seed
preachers like Gan and William Branham modified this false doctrine and changed
the way a serpent seed person was to be identified. They could not get a
great white following and so sought to convert blacks and non-whites like
Gan, and so changed the racial identity of the serpent seed and spiritualized
it.
I am shocked that any person of black or brown skin would accept Gan's false
doctrine. But this shows there are blacks easily deceived the same
as there are whites (Branhamites) and yellow (Ganites) easily deceived. I
will not go into my teaching against all of Branhamism here but I do
want to point out that Eve had no flesh seed of her own, her flesh seed came
from Adam. Remember, "this is bone of my bone and flesh of my
flesh." If Cain was born of Eve and had a mixed flesh seed
of Eve and the serpent, then he was a descendent of Adam no matter what Gan
and Branhamites say. The whole doctrine of the serpent seed is false
and Gan is a false teacher spreading this heresy among the nations.
Richard Gan claims he came into the Branhamite doctrine in 1971. He
claims other Branhamites are distorting the "Message" of William Branham
but he is the one to fix all this and preach the truth. He is trying
to raise himself up as the greatest serpent seed preacher since William Branham.
This is seen in his logo where he says the eagle screams (representing
Branham) and then slips down the dove and says it leads (Richard Gan). On
the doctrine of the serpent seed, Gan agrees with William Branham that Eve
had sex with the devil and Cain was the devil's seed. So far as I know,
I have not found a single place where he disagrees with William Branham.
It is right then to conclude that he is a Branhamite equal to all the
others in spite of him claiming he is some how different.
Gan has traveled to several nations. including India, to spread the Branham
heresies. I got some hateful emails from India Branhamite who threatened
to kill me if I was to come to India. He claimed Branham was Christ.
This man is one of Gan's followers or one who has run amuck after Gan's
Branhamite heresies messed up his mind. In every place he has gone, that
Gan has sown this seed of the serpent message of Branham: he has brought
hatred, confusion, discord, and strife. He believes this is all justifiable
because of his belief that all denominations and other groups are of the
devil, the serpent seed. When Branhamism is attacked by anyone within
these denominations he discounts all their objections as being nothing less
then antichrist trying to destroy the "Message." Fact is, we here in
America know William Branham. He lived here, preached here, did his
miracles here, and fabricated his lying false doctrines here. It was
here that Branham used miracles while calling upon the name of Jesus to back
up his claims he was the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet of Malachi 4:4-6.
Yes, Branham claimed he was this prophet. Gan claims he was this
Old Testament Prophet come again in the flesh of William Branham. Branham
was then an Old Testament Prophet. But no, according to Gan he is not
an Old Testament Prophet, but the last day prophet of the Church age.
Well, all Branhamites have a problem here because none of them have
proved Branham was with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. In addition,
Elijah was caught up to God and did not see death, whereas William Branham
saw death in a horrible car accident that could not be anything but the judgment
of God. So, if Branham was Elijah as he claimed and as Gan preaches
to the unlearned throughout the world, then Elijah got killed by a drunk
driver after he had an excellent air ride in a chariot driven by angels.
Elijah is buried in Tennessee under a pagan pyramid symbol, and Elijah
claimed it was no sin to be a member of the Baal Masonic lodge!
Richard Gan is a unique man. He buys his way among the unlearned and uneducated
with cold drinks, sandwiches, and a little party for the ministers and Pastors
he can gather. Now where is his wife? Why is she never seen with
him? Why does he never mention her? Is this man normal? He
is not an anointed man of God. His teachings lack the real anointing.
He tries to make up for this lack with educational gibberish and his
ability to chart in picture form his doctrine. Any one with the real Holy
Ghost would detect this instantly his false doctrine in these charts and
notice how he contradicts the Word of God. Others who have met him and walked
out of his meetings testify the man is somewhat of a sissy. Be that
as it may or may not, he is certainly a false teacher.
He made several jabs at my expose of Branham's lies and false doctrines.
But did he prove any of it false? NO! Did he prove Branham did not say
the things I quoted? No he did not! Instead he proposed even more
stupidity. Here is a snap-shot of Gan's attack upon me for my expose
of Branhamite falsehood.
Gan quotes my
Branham study: (Red is Gan,
green is Branham, black are my
words)
"Cohen G. Reckart, an Apostolic Messianic believer,
was nit-picking on certain statements of William Branham to try and prove
that Branham was a false prophet. By picking on certain statements from all
his taped sermons, interviews or write-ups, he is trying to show the world
that Branham was teaching certain false doctrines. Like the Branhamites,
this is what Cohen Reckart is doing on his webpage —
http://members.aol.com/acts0412/branham.html.
He is no different from the Branhamites.
However, I would like to answer some of his questions,
beginning with this one:
"Is it not true that you are not saved unless
you have received the Holy Ghost?" (This
was asked of William Branham by a person at one of his meetings).
Firstly, let me say this: please do not simply quote
Bible verses or statements out of context just to prove your point. Any fool
can even quote from the Scriptures to say that there is no God or that Jesus
taught His followers to practice cannibalism and vampirism (when He told
them to eat His flesh and drink His blood or else they would not have eternal
life).
I know for a fact that Bro. Branham taught strongly
on the Apostolic Faith based on Acts 2:38 since I received the Message
of William Branham in 1971. He taught that if a person was not born again
of the Word and the Spirit that person would not be saved.
I know this for a fact . But now this man is telling Christians and me otherwise.
He is showing that Branham was in the "look doctrine" because of Branham's
first wife. (I wonder from where did Cohen Reckart get his "facts".)
"Can one have the Holy Ghost and not the
signs?" (This also was asked of William Branham).
Of course, being a believer of the faith he called
Apostolic, Cohen Reckart must contend that there is no salvation without
the sign of speaking in tongues as recorded in Acts 2:4. I wonder how many
non-Pentecostals would agree with him. As an ex-A.o.G. member, I was taught
to seek for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking
in tongues. But I know that many Pentecostals don't really speak in tongues.
The majority is caught up with impersonation speaking gibberish. And don't
forget, demons speak in tongues too.
What did Branham teach concerning women cutting their
hair:
I [William Branham] say one thing I wished, ...Now,
I know my kids has done that too, Rebekah and Sarah, I seen when they cut
their hair off in front, like this, ...I don't, I ...but when they got all
long, hanging down like this, and just cut the front of it out of their eyes,
little kids maybe, I, I wouldn't know whether that'd be wrong. (Conduct,
Order, And Doctrine, Q #187. p 1102).
Unlike many churches who liberally allow Christian
women to cut their hair, Cohen Reckart strictly disallow it. But does he
also disallow "little kids" to cut their hair? Are little girls
women?
Cutting the hair of little girls is considered as
contravening the Word of God by some believing parents. But Paul, in 1
Corinthians chapter 11, talks about women and not little girls.
“Women” in the Bible refers to those of marriageable age. Just
as you cannot force your little girls to be water-baptized knowing that it
is a believer's Baptism, so you cannot force them to keep long hair even
when they are grown-up. It is their faith in God, not yours. Love them,
respect them and teach them, raising them up in the reverence of God and
His Word. And they will not depart from the Truth.
So a sister then speaks up and ask him:
Question: "Is it wrong for me to run a beauty shop.
I don't believe in Christians [women] cutting [their own] hair, but I cut
others and color also."
Answer: "Sister dear, I would not
know what to tell you" (Ibid Q #250, p 957).
With these quotes, Reckart shows up as a person who
would strongly object to any Christians holding a job that’s un-Christian.
In this case, I would advise the sister to change her job but I would not
say it’s wrong if that is all she knows to do. Would Reckart consider
a Christian waiting at tables in a hotel serving strong drinks to patrons
and guests un-Christian? Would it also be un-Christian to work as
a packer in a cigarette factory?
It has been alleged by many that Branham had been
a Mason. Some believe he was mixed up possibly in Wicca or influenced somehow
by it.
Scary, isn't it? That's one way to scare people away
from Branham and his teachings. "It was said that..., It was alleged that...,
Some ministers reported that..., etc, etc." It was said (now this is a fact)
that fiction is stranger than fact. Fiction is fiction and fact is fact.
They don't mix. But to take fiction and present it as though it is fact is
tantamount to telling a lie."
_________________________End of Gan's quotes and statements.
To read my study on Branham's answers
click here and
you will see Gan did not copy and paste Branham's answers to questions as
I did. Why? Because Branham's answers disclose he was a false teacher and
did not teach the true Apostolic doctrine.
Let me take this from the top of Gan's statements above:
Gan is showing his anger toward me because I quoted Branham about his answer
concerning tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. He
could not say I misquoted Branham. How come he did not print Branham's answer
to the question? It's because Gan believes a person can be saved without
the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues just as Branham believed. Gan does
not believe tongues are the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost
and neither did William Branham. William Branham's "look doctrine" came from
his own words that if anyone was looking at Calvary they were saved. I
gave the quote and reference where he said it. For Gan to question
me on this when he knows I quoted Branham shows he is not honest.
I teach that in Acts 2:1-4 speaking in other tongues was the evidence of
Holy Ghost baptism. Gan and Branham do not accept this. They claim a person
can have the Holy Ghost AND NEVER SPEAK IN TONGUES! He throws
up all those who don't believe in tongues as some great proof that the doctrine
is false! Who is he trying to fool? Oh yes, the ignorant and
unlearned. And there are plenty of them apparently where ever Gan opens his
mouth. Gan later mocks the doctrine of speaking in tongues as the evidence
by claiming there are some who have a demon tongue and others who talk in
gibberish. Gan thinks he can easily dismiss speaking in tongues in
Acts 2:4 as the initial evidence with this gobblygook. Actually, Gan
believes when a person accepts the Lord as their Saviour they are saved just
like Branham believed it. Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation for Gan
or Branham. They use it but they do not rightly divide it nor preach it with
the same meaning as Apostle Peter did. I noticed he never claims he had the
Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and now he recants this
experience. Not one place in all William Branham's books that I have
read that copied his preaching is there a spot where he speaks in tongues.
Quite amazing ain't it?
Gan and Branham believed any gift or fruit of the Spirit can substitute as
a sign a person has received the Holy Ghost. Neither Gan or a Branhamite
will ever produce a Scripture that documents anyone in the Bible receiving
the Holy Ghost after the day of Pentecost with the evidence a fruit of the
Spirit or one of the other gifts. I am right on this, both Richard
Gan and William Branham are false teachers. Branham was a false prophet.
If Gan claims to be a prophet then he is a false prophet with all these lies
and misrepresentations.
About women cutting their hair and little girls
cutting their hair. Gan is just as false as William
Branham here. Branham confessed he allowed his girls to cut
their hair. And they were not "little kids" either, they were grown teenagers
with hair bobbed off. To the right and left are pictures and these
girls as young ladies. Their hair shows evidence of being cut in both pictures.
The picture on the right shows them in their cut hair a few years earlier.
There was no change in the doctrine of hair in William Branham's household
even though he knew other Apostolics preached against females cutting their
hair. These girls are not "little kids." Gan and Branham are false
teachers. They are both deceivers. Yes, I teach that little girls
(kids) are not to have their hair cut. Never! Not from
their birth to their death. Gan and Branham teach it's ok for them
to cut their hair and do not object to the older ones cutting their hair
either. Let's face it. Gan and Branham preach it is ok for all females to
cut their hair.
Gan does not believe it is a sin for females to wear britches, i.e.
pants/slacks/trousers/sarong. Haha, he says men wear a skirt called
a sarong in his Singapore and this heathenism is to be accepted. He
teaches his nation's heathenism authorizes men and women to cross dress (be
transvestites). Below on the left is a picture of Gan's mother
in britches/pants which he confesses in his diatribe for women wearing pants
and men wearing skirts, they were designed from Eastern (US) customs and
named the samfoo. There Gan is in the right picture in a heathen skirt of
his culture. He claims he put this on, on purpose to convince the German
preachers in the picture that heathen culture is not to be condemned using
the Bible. He is really saying that Branham would approve all his men in
skirts? By this perversion Gan removes condemnation from men and women around
the world cross-dressing. Gan justifies this with his statement below the
pictures:
|
Richard Gan in his dress-sarong
with German Branhamites who accepted it! |
"When Moses wrote Deuteronomy (22:5), was he referring
that women should not wear trousers? Obviously not, for trousers was not
yet in existence. But that there was a distinct difference between men's
and women's apparel is clear. Yet, there were Jews in those days who had
lost their sexual orientation and cross dressed causing Moses to write what
he did" (quote of Gan's article
"Of Man's
and Woman's garments").
For a self-promoted intellectual he sure don't know the Word of God. What
about God specifically designing breeches-britches for the priest to be worn
in the Tabernacle as man's clothing, and yes Mr. Gan, trousers! We
read of it here:
Exodus 28:42--And thou shalt make them linen breeches
to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall
reach.
To the left is a picture of these breeches-britches. Later the length was
extended down to the ankle. These were designed by God for men. It
was a sin for a woman to put wear these breeches, now called britches, pants,
or trousers. These breeches are the forerunner of pants/slacks/trousers/britches.
No one will ever prove these breeches descended down from women's clothes.
And if a woman wanted to be a priestess she had to wear these. Since
there were no female priestess in the Tabernacle, they were forbidden to
wear them. Gan is false on his doctrine here! He thinks he can make
breeches baggy, drop the hem line down to the ankle, and his mother and other
females can put them on and walk about before God without condemnation.
Moses forbid cross-dressing after the breeches design was given to
the Priesthood, Gan has to come up with the proof of what a man and women
could not wear that the opposite sex did wear. Show us Mr. Gann.
Show us the difference Moses was talking about! Will he do it? No!
Did Jews permit women to walk in the open world in a pair of
breeches pants? If so, then Jews broke the commandment of God given
to Moses, and any such reprobation regardless of who did it would not be
acceptable to God.
Any preacher who believes Gan's lies is compelled to wear a skirt and show
us he is not a transvestite and pervert. I want to see them preach
in a skirt like he wears above. If they refuse, they are admitting
this man is a woman in a man's body!
Gan lies about there being no such thing as trouser like breeches in the
day of Moses. Lies like these deceive the unlearned and uneducated and that
is why Branhamism takes such a strong hold among cultures and nations that
are prone to worship and venerate monkeys and men. In India and in
Africa, idols have long been worshipped and to replace these with a christ
Branham is no great task if someone goes among them performing miracles and
telling them they are the result of William Branham and his "Message." These
heathen will easily switch from an old dead god to a new one. Take
for instance the India self-made second Elijah, S. Thomas, who claims Branham
resurrected on the third day after his death and he is now Lord
Branham Christ.
Click here
to see the front page from his book on Branham Christ.
Gan and this S. Thomas are real apostates when it comes to apostolic doctrine.
Many Branhamites of India and other nations have caught on to Gan and
his perversions of Branham's teachings and are now opposing him.
Branhamite
Ronald Watson is one such man who does not like what Gan is doing to
the Branhamite family. There is now a feud between Gan and Watson.
Yes Mr. Gan, I preach it is a sin for females to cut their hair and to wear
pants. And yes, I preach a man that wears a skirt is a transvestite and a
possible homosexual. That means I have a very low opinion not only
of your false doctrines but also you as a person. And yes, I do have the
evidence Branham allowed his girls to cut their hair from the time they were
teenagers all the way up to their adult life. Today they have cut hair
and are not even living for God. Such is the sad case of the Branham family,
all of them will end up in hell if someone does not reach them with the Truth.
About the woman who ran a beauty shop and cut women's hair: Branham told
her it was ok. He should have told that woman to quit her job and take
one in Murphy's five and dime. Yes they had them then. This woman
could have taken a job in any number of places where her spiritual life would
not have been in danger. There were choices of employment. One
particular clothes cleaners at that time hired a lot of the Pentecostal girls
and they did not have to wear pants or bob their hair. Many of the
other stores and pharmacies likewise. There were several glass factories
that did not require pants or cut hair. Mr Gan's thing that a woman has to
work in a sinful environment is false. Yes, I preach it is a sin to put strong
drink to thy neighbor's lips. And yes, I would never permit any female
of my congregation to be a waitress and serve hard drinks. Apparently
Gan believes its ok. Apparently he believes its ok to make, package
and sell cigarettes.
Since he claims this is ok he must teach Branham authorized this when he
refused to rebuke a woman for working in a sinful environment where she was
cutting the hair of sinner women. Taking his doctrine would mean a
person could work in any sinful work environment including a pornography
business. Come on Gan, have your brains checked sir! Would you
let your wife work at a brothel as the madame of the house? Get real!
Stop this madness and admit there are work places and environments
that Christians should not work in. Gan's doctrine would mean a man
could grow poppy flowers when he knows they will be used to make drugs.
Yes, Gan, I teach it is a sin to grow tobacco, sell tobacco to a cigarette
manufacturer, and to sell or in any way traffic in cigarettes. They
way you write it, you see no problem in selling cigarettes to customers of
a store.
Richard Gan like William Branham is a fasle teacher. Anyone who receives
him is not being led by God. Anyone who accepts his false doctrines
from Branhamism is deceived. I know this is language with the bark
still on it, but I must be plain-spoken here. Gan is an enemy of the
Word of God and God's Messianic work. He is a perverter of Biblical doctrine.
Bishop G. Reckart
http://jesus-messiah.com/