Talk:Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians/Archive 1

Disclaimer required

I have looked briefly at some of these items. Most of those cases the "prophet" would be considered (at the time) a heretic, rather than a member of a mainstream church. I think a little more disclaimer is needed at the top, or a lot of deleteing. :) Also refs to the actual words of the "prophets", where possible. Rich Farmbrough 20:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and noticed a few more problems with this page that put it in significant NPOV danger. A number of the "prophecys" (for example all of the ones by Hal Lindsey) are not claimed to be prophecys by the people who gave them. Instead they are usually represented as opnions/intrpratations/guesses of the individual inquestion. Including them under the heading of prophecy especially unfulfilled prophecy, while removing any disclaimer that came with them, makes me rather uncomfortable in terms of NPOV. Saying, "I think this event is very likley to happen by the end of the decade", seems to count as giving prophecy here. I think this page would be a decent cantidate for deletion and/or massive change W.R.T. what is included and what critera must be meet for inclusion. Dalf | Talk 08:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that these people were heretics at the time and did not necessarily represent the enitre church. If we delete the "heretical" ones we might end up with only four (Armstrong, Miller, Russell and Jo Smith). I'm happy if you want to write a short disclaimer. One Salient Oversight 22:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have read this article and feel like the disclaimer is somewhat lacking. I was thinking that I could add a better disclaimer, with maybe some different views of what prophecy is in the Christian Church. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to glance over the names to see that most of the names are were considered heretics before they over opened their mouths about future events, and then the other half were considered heretics after they opened their mouths. Another thought, should Mormon prophets really be put under Christianity? It seems that most Mormons view the LDS Church as being a separt entity much like Christianity is separte from Judiasm. This article almost seems useless in some ways because all of the issues are probably discussed under the respective main headwords. In some ways to it seems a little American centric, none of these "Christian" prophets really had much respect or following outside of a small sect on the grand scale of Christomdom. I don't know just some thoughts. --B.T.

I find this whole article not in keeping with NPOV. It states that biblical prophecy is covered in other articles, but I have yet to find anything that remotely covers biblical prophecy that remains unfufilled. Further, all Christian prophecy should be included in the article and it should not be limited to individuals who may not be recognized by that wonderfully tolerant group known as orthodox churches. In doing so, we gain an article that does not seek to "pick a bone" with non-orthodox groups and puts the whole area of Christian prophecy in perspective. Storm Rider 04:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prophecies of the Millenium

Prophecies of the Millenium was a 1997 TV special with a number of predictions that would be interesting to have listed.

(not signed)

William Branham

The statement in the article about William Branham giving a prophecy is incorrect! It says

---

An example of this is what is commonly believed to be William Branham's prophecy that all Christian denominations will be controlled by the World Council of Churches by 1977.

---

The next statement is correct.

---

However, closer inspection reveals that Branham merely predicted that this event would happen, but didn't prophesy it.

This sounds like semantics: predicting events == prophecy in many minds. Why not include it? Beanbatch 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

---

So why would we put something that is so called prophecy when it isn't on this page? I'm removing it.

Here are references in sermons where he talks about 1977. Notice very carefully he says he predicts, not prophecies.

http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=690 Conference (60-1125) E-7 Then I turned to look and I seen the United States was a smoldering something had burned it up, and down beneath there I said (not in the trance) but I predict... Remember this. I guess this is taped too. I predict that these things will take place between now 1933 and 1977 which will give us sixteen more years if my prediction strikes right.

http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=782 Daniel's Seventy Weeks (61-0806) 226 Now, what's the next thing? The Seven Seals now. We drop right in on them when the Lord will permit. When that'll be, I don't know. Just whenever He delivers it, then we'll go right into it. Then we're going to have a long, long meeting, 'cause we're going to take from the 6th chapter through the 19th to get through it. And as slow as I am with it... Now, I do not want anyone to go away misunderstanding this. Tape's still playing? I don't want anyone to misunderstand it. Don't misunderstand now, and say, "Brother Branham said Jesus will come in 1977." I never said no such a thing. Jesus may come today. But I have predicted that between '33 and '77 something would take place, that these things that I seen come to pass in the vision would take place. And five of them has already took place.

http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=696 The Ephesian Church Age (60-1205) 46 Then after the Ephesian Church Age, from A.D. 53 until A.D. 170, then started in the Smyrna Church Age which lasted from A.D. 170 until A.D. 312. Then come in the Pergamos Church Age, and the Pergamos Church Age begin at 312 and lasted till A.D. 606. Then come in the Thyatira Church Age, and the church age of Thyatira begin at 606 and went to 1520, the dark ages. And then the Sardis Church Age begin at 1520 and lasted till 1750, the Lutheran age. Then from 1750, the next age come in was the Philadelphian, Wesley age; that begin at 1750 and lasted till 1906. And at 1906 the Laodicean church age set in, and I don't know when it'll end, but I predict it'll be done by 1977. I predict, not the Lord told me, but I predict it according to a vision that was showed me some years ago, that five of those things has (out of the seven)--has already taken place about...

I realize that the author of this page said not to edit. Yet I am compelled to write this. The following is a transcript from Billy Paul Branham.

In Germany, they brought a blind girl up to, and he said, "Satan has caused this, but Jesus is going to make you well." He pulled her to him, and prayed for the girl. I was 18 or 19, he said, "Lord Jesus, give this little child back her sight." I watched her eyes come open. Then she grabbed hold of my Dad's tie, like this. She said to the interpreter, "What color is that?"

He is still alive and able to answer questions about his dad.

Papal Prophecy

I removed the supposed papal prophecy as there was no actual documentation for it other than someone's personal page claiming a diary of his had it.

Again, removed the reference to the pope, it's spurious, and ridiculous. The fact that a bunch of websites cite it is meaningless, I've found ones saying that the very same prophecy actually said we'd have First Contact. You asked for a reference, here it is, the very first off of Google. http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl10.htm

According to the 1997-JUN-24 issue of Sun Magazine Pope John XXIII predicted in 1961 that Doomsday will begin with the detonation of a nuclear bomb in a major European city by a Libyan terrorist group. This would have triggered a massive six-month war that will cause the deaths of millions of people. The chance that this is an accurate quotation is near zero.

Unless you have actual evidence of this diary existing and making this prophecy, I suggest that you keep it deleted.

Apologies for forgetting to sign the first entry.

--Kadett 18:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay. It looks like we're in disupte here. I won't revert until this thing is sorted out.

This issue is something I've had before here on Wikipedia. Your argument is that the prophecy should not be placed on this page because there is no actual evidence to suggest that the diary exists. My argument is that the prophecy should be placed on this page because there is no actual evidence to suggest that the diary doesn't exist.

On the one hand, I base my argument upon the many web pages around the internet that seem to indicate that the diary exists. Moreover, since there is no web page that specifically debunks the belief, I believe that the quote should stand.

On the other hand, you base your theory on the belief that no actual evidence of the diary can be found except on these web pages which seem to contain spurious information. The Religioustolerance web page contains The chance that this is an accurate quotation is near zero but that really means nothing - where is their evidence to support this?

I'll only be convinced by facts. At the moment the facts seem to indicate that the diary does exist simply because of the mass of information out there that says that it exised. I know that this doesn't logically mean that the diary did exist, but I think I would feel happier if there was something more concrete that dispelled this belief.

One Salient Oversight 23:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've committed the invisible pink unicorn fallacy, or alternatively, that of appealing from ignorance. http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm

Furthermore, all of those website rely on simply one source. A million webpages with the same source does not validate the source. Furthermore, the source in question appears to be a tabloid, due to other articles I've spotted online.--Kadett 01:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I have fallen for that particular issue. I'm not arguing from ignorance but from the fact that many webpages exist that support it while little exists to deny it. Is this correct or is this not?

Does the Daddy Long Legs spider contain the most dangerous venom in the world? Plenty of websites will assert this but others exist that prove beyond doubt that it is an urban myth. I don't see that this quote from the Pope fitting into this category because nothing exists to disprove it.

Moreover, while there is nothing to disprove it, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that there is credence to the story. After all, there's plenty of weird and wonderful religious types that go into trances and make outrageous prophecies - why not the Pope?

I am not making a logical fallacy here. According to the link you gave me you are saying that because I believe the Pope's quote can't be disproven then it must be true. I'm not saying that. It may be true, it may be false. It can't be disproven either that Pope John XXIII was actually a closet Buddhist. However I am using evidence -secondary evidence though it may be - that asserts that something is true. You dispute the evidence - but you need to do more to be convincing.

A diary does exist of the Pope's works but I have yet to discover whether the diary contains these apocalyptic visions.

Are we getting close to Godwin yet?

One Salient Oversight 04:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And of course this doesn't help my cause much! One Salient Oversight 04:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And of course my research has proven your assertion correct! It has been an interesting journey reading all the stuff I did - apparently John XXIII isn't liked by conservatives and those with a penchant for Marian Visions since he supposedly covered up some prophecy at Fatima. I think the idea that he made these predictions came from a group of Fatima-influenced Catholics who decided that his covering up of the Fatima revelation led to his own form of religious ecstasy. I have therefore added the following to the John XXIII article:

Many conservative Catholics - those who disagree with Vatican II - have derided Pope John's influence in this area, seeing in him the beginnings of a movement away from the true faith. Many who following the teachings of Our Lady of Fatima also believe that Pope John deliberately withheld secret prophetic information revealed by an apparition of the Virgin Mary. [1] This is perhaps the basis for internet reports in the late 1990s about the supposed discovery of Pope John's diary where he recieved prophetic insight into the future, including the return of Jesus in New York in 2000. [2] Although Pope John did have a diary (Journey of a Soul) [3] there is no evidence to suggest that he received apocalyptic visions of the future. [4]

One Salient Oversight 23:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

United States of Europe a realised prophecy because of European Union?

I let this comment stay until I realised that there was a problem with it - the contributor stated that the prophecy could be considered fulfilled due to the creation of the EU in 1992. However, Lindsay pointed out that this would occur in the 1980s. While this may seem like nitpicking, it is nevertheless important to recognise that Lindsay's specific prophecy was not fulfilled because it did not occur in the timeframe he predicted. It's like someone predicting in 1970 that the Red Sox would win the world series again in 2003. The fact that they won in 2004 and not 2003 does not make the supposed prophecy correct because it was "nearly right". One Salient Oversight 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and failed 1975 prophecy

I reverted this point because it is true. Go into Google and type in "Jehovah's Witnesses" + 1975 and there are pages on this. The fact that this event is not mentioned in any of the Wikipedia pages is either one very salient oversight, or someone has removed them... One Salient Oversight 09:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've done the search you said, but I didn't find an actual prophecy made by them saying Armageddon was coming in 1975; to the contrary, I found that pages discussing the issue even stated that they never actually prophesied it. For example, the first link that showed up when I did that search you suggested, http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/1975.htm, starts its introduction by saying "Some people who read this article in its entirety may accuse the Society of bare-faced lies -- but these are not really flat-out lies, because the Society never went on record as saying that "the end" would come in 1975." It states, regardless of what opinion one might have of what they did actually say, that they never said the end would come in 1975. The rest of the page also reads like 'see, they never said this, but you can conclude on your own that this is what they meant if you want to.' Google also lists http://www.irr.org/English-JW/jwfacten.html, which states regarding this 1975 stuff, "The Society was careful to avoid printing an outright prediction." They either prophesied/predicted it or they didn't, and these links say they didn't. Now, I can't discount that you have a source that I couldn't find where they actually predicted that Armageddon would come in 1975, and as such I'm not going to revert anything yet, but this shouldn't be listed under unfulfilled prophecies if they never actually prophesied Armageddon coming in 1975 to start with. And peoples' attempts to read between the lines and put words in their mouth that it turns out they never actually said doesn't count as a prophecy.

From what I have read, quite a number of Jehovah's Witnesses asked their leaders if this was an outright prophecy and they said yes. Some JWs even sold their property in the process. There is actually very little official information from the JWs - naturally because they are wanting to ignore the whole thing.

It is obvious that the Jehovah's Witnesses said Something about 1975 that didn't happen and that all those people who don't like JWs use this as evidence against them. So what you'll find is a whole heap of anti-JW websites out there rather than anything objective or even official.

Many years ago I remember reading a Newsweek article that showed ex JWs picketing with signs that said "Witnesses wake up. The article discussed the failed 1975 prophecy. Given the religion's history of failing to predict the apocalypse, it seems reasonable to assume that the 1975 date was a prophecy.

How about a compromise? Leave the "prophecy" in the article but put some disclaimer to say that "some don't see this as a prophecy". One Salient Oversight 23:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, but the thing is, the article itself says that "in this case, prophecies are meant to be specific." If we can't find any hard evidence that they even predicted anything specifically, let alone what such a prophecy would have been exactly, it should be removed. This isn't the kind of thing that requires a compromise; either they said it, in which case it should stay as it is, or they didn't, in which case it should be removed. If you have a link to some source material stating that this specific thing will happen at this specific time, then good, put it here, but if not, you can't run around making allegations about people that can't be fully backed up. Mad ex-Jehovah's Witnesses do not constitute proof. Have you ever talked to a mad divorcee about their ex-spouse (or just about any mad person/people about the person/people they're mad about, for that matter)? The truth has a way of, how shall we say, getting fudged. If it was said, the statements would stand on their own; if not, it cannot be said that they did. Even if some people were told by someone that they personally viewed it as a prophecy that something specific would happen at a specific time, that hardly constitutes a prophecy by "Jehovah's Witnesses," that constitutes a prophecy by insert_name_of_person_here; a prophecy by Jehovah's Witnesses themselves would have been issued by that organization itself, not by individuals. If it was officially predicted, there should still be source material; writings do not disappear because someone wishes they hadn't written something. I'll leave it there for now, but if no hard evidence comes up, I will remove it in a week or whenever I remember again.

Personal Crusade

I resent being ridiculed when the article is reverted that my choice to keep the 1975 prophecy is regarded as a "personal crusade". That is not the case. I have done the research, as shown above, and there seems more than enough evidence that 1975 was the date for an important event that many JWs believed was armageddon. As I have said, type in "Jehovah's Witnesses" + 1975 on Google and you will get many hits. To brush these people aside as simply "mad Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses" and compare them to "mad divorcees" speaking about their former spouses is not a proper way to deal with clear evidence. It doesn't matter that these people are angry - it could be argued that they are ones who are exposing the movement's shortcomings and should be listened to.

The point is, though, that the discussion we have has not reached any form of agreement. I have presented you with evidence in the form of Google hits. You need to present evidence that I can easily examine as well. Rather than diss my evidence and insult me, it may have been better to actually get something that will disprove me. As I have been arguing with Dalf below - let's stop yakking and deal with evidence. Give me enough evidence that supports your case and I will change my mind. Stop arguing like a cheap lawyer. My evidence is a clear indication that the 1975 date should remain in the article. There need a little more than comparing the writers of hundreds of websites to angry spouses to keep the 1975 prophecy out of this article.

And please get a username and sign it at the end of your discussions here.

--One Salient Oversight 05:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

After I finished my writing here I went and did a "Jehovah's Witnesses" + 1975 search on Google and found that the no. 1 article was the Wikipedia Page on Jehovah's Witnesses. If you scroll down to the section "Jehovah's Witnesses and eschatology" you will find a very detailed account of the 1975 event and the issues surrounding it. What I have read indicates that the 1975 date should remain here and that if you wish to remove it, you should argue your point at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses where the 1975 issue has been debated to death before doing anything here.

--One Salient Oversight 06:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As I went into detail about above, I did exactly the search you suggested, and found the opposite of what you claimed I would find. You know it, because you responded to it. You cited no hard evidence above, only that you heard this and that. I explicitly asked you for links and/or actual quotes, and you never provided anything, only hearsay. That ain't gonna cut it. As to mad people somehow having more credibility, that is exactly why I made the mad divorcee analogy. They might be completely accurate, but one certainly does not bet on that, unless one is hearing what one wants to hear; if there is proof, they are welcome to provide it. If you don't have proof you've got nothing. I will mention again, your statement that "I have presented you with evidence in the form of Google hits" is bull. I have actually asked you over and over for exactly that, and you have provided nothing. Thus, there is no proof for me to have to disprove. I, on the other hand, have provided links stating explicitly that the claimed prophecy was never actually made. The Wikipedia link that you just gave, the first link you have provided in this entire discussion, introduces nothing new above what I found at the links I provided from doing the Google search you recommended; in fact, the Wikipedia article states "this view was never fully, or explicitly supported by the Watch Tower Society," the same thing I previously found. Thus, until you can be bothered to provide proof that they did actually make this prophecy, contrary to the multiple available statements that they did not, claims that they did do not belong in an encyclopedia article.

So if you do read http://www.irr.org/English-JW/jwfacten.html you will find the following:

From 1960 to 1966 the organization's growth rate slowed considerably. At this point the WTB&TS introduced a new book and a new date for the end of the world. Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God (1966) by Vice President Franz (1894-1992) concluded that the autumn of 1975 would mark the beginning of the seventh period of human history. The Society was careful to avoid printing an outright prediction, but the message was clear to Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere — Armageddon was coming soon. Some even sold their homes and property in 1974 and were praised by their leaders for doing so.

Membership grew by the thousands until 1975 came and went. Then many Witnesses realized God was not leading the WT Society and left the organization. The leaders of the WTB&TS refused to admit they had been wrong about 1975, and instead told disillusioned members to "adjust their viewpoint."

Exposure of the WT Society's false predictions has created doubts and concerns about the organization.

I'm looking here at the phrases "concluded that the autumn of 1975", "the message was clear... armageddon was coming soon", "sold their homes and property in 1974", "many left the organization", "refused to admit they were wrong about 1975", "false predictions". All of these are clear evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses were convinced that armageddon would happen in 1975.

I can't understand your argument in the slightest. By hanging on the one phrase "The Society was careful to avoid printing an outright prediction" you make the assumption that the 1975 armageddon prediction cannot be included in this article. Furthermore, you make the assumption that simply because it was not "officially" predicted by the Watchtower society, that all other forms of evidence can be discounted. This includes:

• The book by Vice President Franz, a person in great authority within the church, which clearly puts forward a 1975 date.
• The selling of property and the giving up of employment by Witnesses in the years leading up to 1975 because of a widespead belief that armageddon was coming.
• The considerable exodus from the organization by many disillusioned individuals after the 1975 date came and went.

Let me give my own analogy. Was there a war between America and Iraq in 2003? By your definition there was no war, because war was not officially declared by Congress. Yet everyone refers to it as "the Iraq war", including all American officials.

Did the watchtower officially give a 1975 date? No. But every other shred of evidence proves that most JWs, if not all, believed that armageddon was to arrive in 1975. That surely should count as a prophecy.

BTW - When the article introduction states prophecies are meant to be specific and measurable, it is in reference to the prophecy itself, not from where they originated from. A "specific" prophecy is "In 1975 the end of the world will come".

I won't revert until we discuss this further. If you don't reply within a few days I will revert. --One Salient Oversight 02:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

But this is not about whether there existed Jehovah's Witnesses that thought the end was coming by 1975; the answer to that question is an obvious yes. The question of relevance to the issue of whether Jehovah's Witnesses actually predicted that Armageddon was coming in 1975 is whether Jehovah's Witnesses actually predicted that Armageddon was coming in 1975, not what individual members believed. Under your criteria, a Jehovah's Witness believing that the moon is in fact made of cheese somehow constitutes proof that Jehovah's Witnesses have officially taught that the moon is made of cheese. This has all already been discussed to great depth above, so I will not repeat it all again; I am starting to feel like a broken record. This new source (and first you have provided that was not another Wikipedia page), however, despite being one of the most one-sided tales I have seen in a long, long time, does also say what at least three other sources have said, that "The Society was careful to avoid printing an outright prediction." As previously said, they either predicted it or they did not; I am not sure how to further break that concept down. You act like the fact that they did not make the prediction is not relevant to the question of whether they made the prediction. I am starting to think that I am the only one that has ever written a remotely academic (or non-academic for that matter) paper without getting an F, getting thrown out of school, and/or getting sued for defamation and slander. I am not sure what exactly the "seventh period of human history" was supposed to be, but even your source concludes that it did not amount to a prediction of Armageddon, which, considering the source, pretty much means that it was not. As a side note, didn't the United States actually declare war on Iraq, with Kerry having also voted for it, something that came back to haunt him at election time? So yes, that was an actual, official war. Although a more appropriate illustration would be if no one had heard anything about this supposed invasion of Iraq, but ex-soldiers were telling us it happened (and people like you were buying it completely without bothering with a simple 'prove it'). In any case, many more things come to mind, but it occurs to me that I have already said them all to you previously, so there is no sense in repeating them. I am also not sure what a third party is supposed to do about this, unless he has your quotes, but whatever.

I couldn't help but compare your new additions with your link as I read the link, and there was one detail I should mention. For 1918, you wrote "God destroys all churches," whereas the source says "God would destroy churches." There is a big difference between destroying churches and destroying all churches. So I will take the word "all" out when I finish writing this. If you would like to argue that destroying churches and destroying all churches are in fact equivalent concepts, please explain why you think so here before reverting.

Okay I'll make the assumption that congress officially declared war. Not being American (and being anti-Iraq-war from way before 2003) I'm always at risk of making the wrong statements.

At issue here is not the idea that a couple of witnesses had some idea that 1975 was armageddon. The point I am making is that the vast majority of witnesses believed that 1975 was armageddon. Moreover, a book from one of the Vice Presidents of the Watchtower explicitly stated 1975. There is something of a pattern here:

• Charles Taze Russell makes a 1914 prophecy that is not fulfilled.
• After Russell dies, Joseph Franklin Rutherford makes a series of prophecies that were not fulfilled.
• One of Rutherford's young proteges was a man named Frederick W. Franz.[5]
• Frederick Franz became a vice president and eventually president of the Watchtower society. (Dates given in Franz article)
• This was the same Frederick Franz who wrote the book Life Everlasting In the Freedom of the Sons of God.
• It was in this book that Franz makes an explicit 1975 prediction.
• Raymond Franz (relation to Fred yet to be determined by my research) was a member of the Watchtower governing body at the time and eventually wrote a book called crisis of conscience which outlined some of the events of this time period.[6]. In this book he states In 1976, a year after the passing of that widely publicized date, a few members of the Governing Body began urging that some statement should be made acknowledging that the organization had been in error, had stimulated false expectations. Others said they did not think we should, that it would "just give ammunition to opposers." Milton Henschel recommended that the wise course would be simply not to bring the matter up and that in time the brothers would stop talking about it. There was clearly not enough support for a motion favoring a statement to carry. That year, an article in the July 15 Watchtower did refer to the failed expectations but the article had to conform to the prevailing sentiments within the Governing Body and no clear acknowledgement of the organization’s responsibility was possible. - Crisis of Conscience p 209

So what we have here is the following evidence:

1. The public making of dates to signify coming prophecies is common in the Organisation's history. It is therefore not strange to argue that a 1975 prediction was made.
2. A book from a person who eventually became the top man in the Watchtower explicitly gave a 1975 armageddon date.
3. The vast majority of Witnesses around the world accepted this dating, and began to prepare accordingly, with many selling houses and giving up employment to spend time on evangelism.
4. Large numbers of new members were drawn into the organization between the release of Franz's book and 1975. This was due to a renewed enthusiasm amongst members.
5. When the 1975 date passed, large amounts of Witnesses left the organisation. This indicates that many were disillusioned with the failed prophecy.
6. Raymond Franz, a member of the Watchtower executive, writes a book in which he records members of the executive arguing for a formal apology for the failed prophecy.

Which of these points do you disagree with?

--One Salient Oversight 08:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

So Franz "explicitly gave a 1975 armageddon date"? Surely you have a quote then. Or, you might want to check that link again to see what they say he actually said. The rest of what you said consists of red herrings and repetition.

Just so this is all above board

I have requested comment from a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. You can find my request at User_talk:Hawstom#Your_opinion_at_this_talk_page_is_sought --One Salient Oversight 03:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson prediction about Bush landslide victory in 2000

I am researching this and will eventually produce a believable external link to prove that he did make this prophecy. One Salient Oversight 09:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pat Robertson prediction about Bush 2004 victory as a "blowout"

This was on the page about 2-3 months ago and was taken off - but my research into the 2000 prediction has led me to see that Pat Roberston made the prediction that Bush would win quite easily. He says:

"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his 700 Club program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way." [7]

This statement indicates an easy victory for Bush. "Easy" would mean an easily superior majority of electoral votes. As it stands, the election was a narrow victory for Bush. I therefore think that this is an unfulfilled prophecy. One Salient Oversight 09:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a prediction! As I state above this page needs a much better definition of what constitutes a prophecy. If you were to ask Pat Robertson right after he made that statment (i.e. before the election results were known) if he was making a prophecy, do you honestly think he would say he was? Dalf | Talk 08:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord.... Isn't that supposed to be a prophecy? I mean, I make predictions about the future all the time but I don't pretend that I'm hearing them from God and I certainly don't believe that I am 100% right all the time. But here, Pat Robertson says that George Bush is going to win easily and he got this information directly from God. Well... God was wrong... or maybe Pat made a prophecy about the future that didn't come true. No. 2 is the most likely. That's why it should stay here.

If Pat said "I think George Bush will win in a blowout", then that is merely a prediction based upon his own knowledge. But he didn't say that. He said "I really believe I'm hearing it from the Lord." That's what turns it from being merely prediction into being prophecy.

--One Salient Oversight 09:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He starts out using the word think though. Then he uses the phrase I really bealieve, is he a bit whacky? Yes? But, unless its CLEAR that someone thinks they are making a prophecy when they say or print something then its not enclipedic material. This whole article is filled with the same problem. Hal Linsey for example specifically says that he is not a prophet and that he does not know (and that no one can know) when the end times will come, but that he THINKS its LIKLEY that X. I dunno this whole page really strikes me as a bit of a crusade against some specific groups. Plus the inclusion of JW and LDS stuff in an article on Christian Prophecy is, well its lots of things the the minimum is innaccurate. Even allowing for the mention at the top of them being splinter religions, by that same argument you coudl include christian stuff under the Jewish or judaism heading. I really think this article needs to be re-worked and at the minimum:

• Remove the JW and LDS stuff (put them in a diffrent page is probbly relavent espically the JW predictions as there are actually 2 or 3 more published instances of the JW's predicing the end.)
• Only include prophecys where a actual historical or printed document can be refrenced where its clear that the person thought they were making a prophecy or they are generally accepted as having done so.
• Including what denomanation or sect the person is speaking for (or just for themselves).
• Include the exact wording of the prophecy, in quotation marks, with any qualifiers or disclaimers.

This won't leave much in the last 100 years or so but as it stands this page really comes of as a POV attack on modern christiananty (well the bottom parts do). Even then it still begs the question of "does what Pat Robertson said last november on the 700 club really belong in an encyclopedia? Dalf | Talk 10:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson is a well-known American Christian leader and ran for President once. Anything newsworthy that he does is relevant for an encyclopedia. He is a Pentecostal, which means that he believes in divine direct guidance. The Old Testament prophets said "Thus says the Lord". Pat Robertson says he predicts that Bush will win by a blowout and then qualifies this statement by saying "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord". Not "I think the Lord is saying...", or "I believe that it is possible that God is saying...". Robertson uses definite language here. There is no doubt that what he is saying is that God has told him that Bush will win by a blowout. Now we might quibble here about the meaning of "prophecy", but most people (including most non-Christians) would say that anyone who claims to speak directly from God and makes pronouncements about the future is prophesying.

Look, you cannot deny that Pat Robertson said this. There is no way you can disprove the fact that he basically said "thus says the Lord, Bush will win by a blowout".

Now, onto the JW and LDS stuff. It might be good if you researched into their history. The Mormon Church has their basis in the early-mid 19th century, in the period directly after the Second Great Awakening. They came to being around the same time as the Seventh Day Adventists and the Restoration movement. The JW's came about later in the century. But the fact is that their roots are in America's 19th century religious history. Their doctrines and beliefs may be different to mainstream Christianity, but they are close enough historically to include them in this article.

Including the actual prophecies in the text would make the article too big and unwieldy. In many cases, more details of the prophecies can be found in the articles on the individual prophets or their religious movements. I agree that more external sources should be linked to the page - and these should ideally contain more information. This article is a succinct list, not a detailed one. Cross-referencing should help verify things.

As far as the article being "a POV attack on modern christiananty", all I can say is that if there is any attack made, it is simply the church shooting its own foot. This article shows that major prophets in church history have a less than glorious record when it comes to strike-rate. An encyclopedia article that simply recounts facts (as this one does) cannot be a pov attack on Christianity. What would you consider an NPOV article? All the facts removed?

--One Salient Oversight 13:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I still think that the phrase "I really bealieve god is telling me" contains more of a hedge in it than saying "God is saying" or "God has tole me to tell you". Now if he did actually say the second quote "so sayeth the Lord" then I agree with you he is claiming to prophecy. Use that quote but not the other unless they came together.
• This article is not about "religios movments comming out of america's 19'th century religious historiy'. Christiany is global, and goes back further than that. You cannot call something somethign that it is not, espically in a way that is possibly offensive to both groups of people, simply because they share a common origin or some elements of one. Christiany came form judaism, Islam started out of religious movments in the same area ..... are we going pick one of the religions to list them all under it.
• At the very least more detail about the prophecys is approprate. I once read an artilce (elsewhere) about all of the JW failed prophecys and refrecing watch tower publications by date and page is possible for most of them.
• You are attributing some strikes though that would be very conentious. Many of them feel like outright straw man attacks, when you attribute a high strike rate to someon who repeadatly states that he does not make prophecys (like Hal Linsey). Having strong views about biblical prophecy and when they will come through is not the same thing as prophecying.

Dalf | Talk 21:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can the phrase "I really believe the Lord is telling me..." be interpreted as some form of qualification or hedging? Let's do grammar 101 shall we? "I..." = Pat Robertson. "Believe..." (He is convinced about the truth of something). "Really believe" (He is very VERY convinced about something). "The Lord" (The Christian God). "Is telling me" (direct communication). Take all this together and you get "Pat Robertson is VERY convinced about the fact that the Christian God has directly communicated to him." Now if that is not prophecy I don't know what is.

I have read "The Late Great Planet Earth". In this book, Lindsey makes some very specific links between world events and Biblical prophecy. It goes like this. 1) Sections of Revelation are prophetic 2) Lindsey makes the connection between these prophecies and world events 3) He then makes it very clear that these coming world events WILL occur because they are prophesied in the Bible. Lindsey therefore acts as God's end-times prophet, revealing the truths that had been hidden for centuries in the Bible. Of course, he was wrong.

As far as I am concerned, recieving any direct message from the Lord about anything specific is prophecy. It doesn't matter whether you say "Thus says the Lord" or "I believe that God is saying..." - the fact is that you are communicating the mind of God on a specific issue - and that is prophecy. If a church pastor says during a worship service "God has given me a vision... a vision of this church multiplying... of thousands of people coming to the Lord and of sick people being healed" - then he is being prophetic. If it doesn't happen, then the prophecy is false.

You seem to misunderstand my point about the 19th century religious movements from America. What this does is LINK them to the Christian faith. They use the Christian Bible and they have their roots in American Christian history. Islam rarely uses the Bible and has, over 1000 years, evolved into a totally different religion. If Wikipedia had been written in the 7th century AD then perhaps they would make this list.

--One Salient Oversight 02:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this indenting is a mess :)

My point about Pat Robertson and I suppose I did not make it clear is this--Prophets do not express prophecy in terms of personal belief, that is the hedging that I was refering too. To me (and I think others) the phrase "I really bealieve" is the same as saying "It is my opnion". That is a level of equvacation that I think precludes it as a pronouncement.

I have also read "The Late Great Planet Earth" and so I know that you must have also read the several places where Hal Linsey says things to the effect of I think these phrophecys refer to these event but I do not claim to know when the end is comming. He even goes so far as to say that it is immoral to proclaim that the end will happen on such and such a date. The point is weather or not he is makeing prophecys (when he says he is not) *IS* a matter of opnion and not a neutral one.

As to the JW and LDS issues I understand your point and I agree they are linked in orgin but it is an unequvical fact that they are not christian faiths. The title of this article is specifically about christian faiths. There is no ambiguity they do not in any way belong here. I think you might be able to think of a title for a timeline where they all woudl belong but its not accurate in terms of enclopedic standards and not fair in terms of NPOV to lable them as chrstian. Dalf | Talk 02:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you check the link to Robertson's comments you will see that he made this comment after praying for a number of days. So here we have a Pentecostal Christian leader coming up with this statement after communing with God for a while. He's saying that God told him that Bush will win easily.

Can I ask why you are defending him so? Are you a supporter of his work? I'm just wondering.

My personal belief is that JWs and Mormons are not Christians. Nor were the Anabaptists in the 16th century. Nor were Armstrong and William Branham. For that matter, my personal belief is that the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian organisation either. Ken Copeland and Benny Hinn? Wolves in sheep's clothing.

But my own personal belief - no matter how much I can back it up - doesn't matter in this case. I accept the fact that while I may not believe that JWs and Mormons are Christians, the fact is that they are historically connected to the Christian faith and their failed prophecies should be mentioned here.

--One Salient Oversight 10:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Pat Roberson is a nut actually, but I think the tone of this article makes it seem like you are on a sort of vendetta on the issue, or at the very minimum the lack of a strong uncontraversial definition weakens the article.

I could not disagree more with this enxt paragraph. It is infact the EXACT opposit of what you say, except that you are correct in saying out bealiefs (yours and mine) are irrelvent as to weahther they belong here. But, historically connected to christanity is not the same thign as BEING christian. You cannot call the Mormons or the JWs christianity(which is what you are unambigigusly doing) they simply are not. I do not think the catholic church is a christian orginazation either (so we agree there) but it is generally held as such so for purposes of wikipedia they would belong here. I think an article on end of the world or armageddon predictions that did not come true is probbly worht while but if you are going to include any religion that splintered off christianty in the last 200 years then you cannont characterize it as a list of christian predictions in the title unless you put other words including these other groups. It is factually incorrect. Dalf | Talk 11:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I stand corrected -- the wikipedia page on the JW's seems to think they are a christian denomanation. Weird. The Mormon page does not I don't think .... checking now Dalf | Talk 11:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Just wondering: In the article title, is "Prophecy" supposed to be capitalized? —tregoweth 16:33, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

1914 Jehovah's Witnesses prophecy

This part of the article has been changed by "someone" eager to prove that the 1914 prophecy actually came true.

The fact is that this article concerns prophecy which went unfulfilled. If a person believes that the 1914 prophecy WAS fulfilled, then remove it from the article and argue your point here in the discussion page.

--One Salient Oversight 12:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

15th Century Taborites

This item should be removed. At the time Bohemia was in extremely cruel and long civil war where apocalyptic sects were created and exterminated regularly. It was quite similar to recent Afghanistan, only w/o AK47.

There was no widely influencial religious person claming end of world. The sects were small in numbers and none enjoyed long-term political or military influence.

Pavel Vozenilek 02:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1st Century

--Now before anyone starts with the accusations of POV against me, let me just point out that this addition as nothing to do with the resurrection story of Jesus in the Gospels, but merely refers to the fact that virtually all of the original christians were firmly convinced that the return of their messiah, and the ensuing apocalypse, were going to occur within their own lifetimes. --Jleon 13:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Christ returns and fulfills the prophecies of his remaining disciples and early followers.

There is only one reason why I had to remove this, and it wasn't because of any POV from you. The writings and prophecies of the disciples are found in the New Testament. Since this is included in the Bible, it does not fit the criteria of this article: Prophecy that is direct from the Bible is not included on this page. Problems with Biblical prophecy are dealt with in separate articles. --One Salient Oversight 06:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

--The disciples had little to do with the writing of the Gospels in the first place. Also the gospels don't make explicit claims of the return happening immediately, so I don't really understand the rationale for you removing it. --Jleon 15:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I am talking about the entire New Testament here - the epistles as well. Who do you define as Jesus' 1st century disciples? One Salient Oversight 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hal Lindsey

As I state in my comments above (and will not repeat here) I disagree with the inclusion of ALL of the Hal Lindsey prophecies here on the grounds that he personally (and in his writings) says that they are not prophecies, are nothing more then educated guesses, and interpretation. I am not inclined (right now) to remove them all but the pot ash one I did just remove. The link to the reference (which is actually a link to an article attempting to discredit Mr. Lindsey) has only the following quote:

"I was talking to a prominent Los Angeles engineer after a message on this subject and we discussed the need for a cheap source of energy by which these Dead Sea minerals could be refined. He said that he is certain that there is enough steam trapped under the numerous faults in the earth around Israel to provide power to run turbines to produce energy very economically. He called this new process geo-thermal energy. In the near future Israel will discover a way to produce cheap energy to develop this gold mine of riches.

One of the chief minerals in the Dead Sea is potash, which is a potent fertilizer. When the population explosion begins to bring famine, potash will become extremely valuable for food protection. It is strategic wealth of this sort that will cause the Russian bloc to look for an opportunity to invade and conquer Israel, according to Ezekial." (p. 156).

You will note that:

1. He never gives a time frame specifying the 1980's
2. He does give a number of conditional events, saying that this will only happen as a result of several other events that he thinks will happen. Also given with no timeline.
3. the details of what he says are different from the details that were cited as his prediction.

As I said since Mr. Lindsey claims not to be making prophecy and only giving his opinion of what he thinks some prophecy means I don't much care for his inclusion here. That said if you want to include him I think including the actual text of his 'prophecy' is appropriate since he is modern enough that this is well within possibility. Otherwise, as I think is the case with this entry, we are putting words in his mouth. Dalf | Talk 06:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dalf, how are you?

Let me start by asking why you consider the link that attempts to discredit Hal Lindsey to be unreliable? It's a logical fallacy to assume that someone who has an opinion is somehow unable to provide reliable evidence against something. Although this particular author has an axe to grind, he goes through The Late Great Planet Earth in great detail, showing what Lindsey thought would happen. I found his analysis to be reliable.

Perhaps the most important part of The Late Great Planet Earth is that Lindsey himself believed that all of the events would occur within 40 years of Israel's re-remergence in 1948. Lindsey's book was written in 1970, so he was predicting that everything in his book would occur between 1970 and 1988. Here's the Quote:

When the signs just given begin to multiply and increase in scope it’s similar to the certainty of leaves coming off the fig tree. But the most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves.

Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then he said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.’ (Matthew 24:34 NASB).

What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs -- chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied the Bible all their lives believe that this is so.

I cross-checked this quote from David Matthews' website with my own copy of Late Great Planet Earth and it is certainly an accurate quote. It occurs in the chapter "Israel, O Israel" under the sub-heading "Perfect Parable".

Matthews himself says the following about any doubts over his assertion:

Some may desire to blunt the impact of the above prediction by saying that Hal Lindsey was not dogmatic in the statement or that it has another meaning. Contrary evidence of Hal Lindsey’s meaning is found in another book written by him at the very outset of that decade. Titled, The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon, its message is obvious from the outside. Somewhat was going to occur in the 1980’s: Tribulation and Armageddon. Reasoning to support that expectation is found on page 12, where Hal Lindsey answers a skeptic’s question: “Why do you think that all the various prophecies will come to pass during this generation?” He answered: “The answer is simple. The prophets told us that the rebirth of Israel -- no other event -- would be the sign that the countdown has begun. Since that rebirth, the rest of the prophecies have begun to be fulfilled quite rapidly. For this reason I am convinced that we are now in the unique time so clearly and precisely forecast by the Hebrew prophets.” Doubts are not found in this quote: The rebirth of Israel had a definite prophetic significance, which meant that a prophetic countdown had begun in 1948 and must conclude by 1988, and was supported by the additional evidence of rapid prophecy fulfillments. These are not vague speculations. Hal Lindsey is speaking about “clear and precise” predictions based on the Hebrew prophets. On page 43 of the same book, another statement is made which explicitely defines the time frame for prophetic fulfillment: “It will be crucial if we are to understand the events which have been predicted, and, I believe, will occur in the 1980’s.” Hal Lindsey was confident enough in the time frame to place the fulfillment of predictions found in The Late Great Planet Earth that he wrote an entire book to support that claim and filled it with statements about dreadful events which were approaching.

To me the case is very clear cut. Lindsey believed that the events of his book would be fulfilled by 1988. They weren't. Therefore his prophecy went unfulfilled in both its timeframe and in its specific detail (no more USSR or Eastern Europe for starters).

It's important to realize that Lindsey created an elaborate and detailed end-times scenario that had as its basis a particular understanding of Bible prophecy. Why did Lindsey write the book if not as a guide to the coming future? He was predicting what would happen - he had found the answer to the world's future in the pages of the Bible and was essentially saying that everything he was asserting about Russia, Israel and even Potash was prophesised in the Bible. Essentially Lindsey was saying "This is what will happen in the next 18 years - God has told us all about it in the Bible." Now while he didn't say "I am a prophet", he was making some very detailed predictions that had its basis in the authoritative and inspired word of God. These predictions turned out to be wrong. So was the Bible wrong or was Hal Lindsey wrong? Since the predictions were based upon Lindsey's interpretive construct, it could be easily argued that these specific Bible prophecies that Lindsey had "discovered" had their basis in the mind of man, rather than in the Bible. Logically, therefore, the predictions came from Lindsey's mind, not from the Bible. Since the predictions were given authoritative weight from the Bible, and were then proved wrong, the authority rests upon the person who created them. Rather than being inspired by God, these authoritative predictions were from Lindsey. So while Lindsey may deny being a prophet and that his book was a false prophecy, the fact is that he treated these predictions as though they were Biblical and from God - thus Lindsey was making unfulfilled prophecies.

Let me simplify it somewhat. Let's say you have two people. One person says "God has given me a vision of the future - it will rain tomorrow". It doesn't rain. Therefore the person has made a prophecy that went unfulfilled. The second person picks up a Bible, reads some passages and then declares "The Bible is God's truthful, inspired and inerrant word. In the Bible is everything that God wants us to know about him, about us and about the future. According to this verse here, it says that it will rain tomorrow. I believe what God says." The next day arrives and there is no rain. Therefore the second person has also made an unfulfilled prophecy. And, of course, Hal Lindsey is that second guy.

I'll give you time to respond and I won't revert your changes yet. At issue is the following:

• Did Hal Lindsey believe that all the events in The Late Great Planet Earth would occur before 1988?
• Lindsey has made detailed interpretations of Biblical prophecy in The Late Great Planet Earth (such as explicit references to the role of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, Communist China and the European Community, as well as their specific roles and activities which are predicted by Bible prophecy). Does this mean that he was predicting the future? And does this mean that he was acting as a prophet (even though he does not call himself one)?

--One Salient Oversight 12:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

At the moment I cant't reply in more detail (which I woudl like to do and will do probbly this evening) but for now let me make a few quick points and answer your questions. First from your first quote with emphisis added:

If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied the Bible all their lives believe that this is so.

Please note that aside from Mr. Lindsey specifically and catagorically stating in several locations in his book that he was not making prophecy but meraly advancing what he thought prophecy ment that statment in itself is even less than his saying that he bealieves it unconditionally.

Further the 1988 refrence is 100% one that is being put in his mouth. It has been a long while since I read his book but I do not recall him saying anythign specific would happen by 1988. In fact a number of his predictions that the article you refrence cite as false or unfullfilled could still happen and would not necessarlly fall outside of any vauge timeline specified. Making the argument that he is infact predicting rather than offering his opnions for the actual events is one thing saying that specific timelines were implied when they were clearly guesses and denoted as such by the author is a bit extream. So in answer to yoru question do I think that Mr. Lindsey thought these thign woudl happen by 1988 I not only think that he did not say that but I think he did not bealieve it. I suspect that he personally probbly bealieved they would likly happen before then and probbly before 2000 but again I don't think he said that. As to the second question there is nothign about Mr. Lindseys writing that implies that the soveit union has to be involved in these events only that a powerful country i power in that general area would be involved.

Again the general tone of Mr. Lindseys writings is one of "I think this is how these prophecies will be fullfiled and I am guessing that they will happen on this sort of timeline".

As to the article being there to discredit him, I was not implying that the authors axe to grind as you put it made him less reliable as a commentator on the topic. I was implying that it made him less than a primary source for determinning what Mr. Lindsey has said and in what context if we are going to be fair to Mr. Lindsey that is.

In short my stance could be summed up by saying that as it satnds this article should be re-named "Currently unfulfilled predictions made by people who some (possibly themselves) call christians" ..... not a very inspiring title but the only one that a large amount of the content on this page could accuratly be held under.

I would like to address some of your other comments as well but will have to hold off until tonight when I can get on a better computer. Dalf | Talk 16:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dalf. I'm finding this hard to understand. On one hand you say that Mr. Lindsey specifically and catagorically stating in several locations in his book that he was not making prophecy and yet on the other hand you say It has been a long while since I read his book. Just letting you know that these two statements don't exactly look good together.

My feeling is quite simple. Both primary and secondary texts seem to clearly indicate that Lindsey had a 1988 date in mind. Unless you can categorically prove otherwise, the Lindsey comments should be returned to the article. It doesn't matter that you feel that Lindsey is being misrepresented here.. the only thing that matters is facts - facts that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since I have used quotes from two of Lindsey's books to support my case, you have to prove that they were wrong. This is not a matter of semantic argument, but a matter of proof. You need to bring to the table quotes from Lindsey's books and other authors that prove your position. If you can't do that, then the article will have to be reverted.

Have a look elsewhere on this page and you will discover a discussion between myself and another person about whether Pope John XXIII made some spurious prophecies. In the end, I could not prove my argument and willingly conceded. If you bring enough proof, chances are that I will be convinced. --One Salient Oversight 02:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In what way do those quotes support the 1988 date? Every one of his statements is riddled with conditionals. The page you link too has one quote him if SPECIFICALLY stating that he was not making prophecy. I am glad that you admit that this should be based on facts and not your own personal crusade because the facts do not support you here. Dalf | Talk 04:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Dalf, you really need to research this. I make my case, you say you'll hold off comment until you're ready, you make no effort to contribute and then when I change it back you start arguing the same line again. If you're going to revert, then bring facts to this discussion. Get Lindsey's books and find evidence there and present it. Otherwise this will just be a talk-fest. I'm the only one who has brought in real evidence in this discussion. You say the facts don't support me - so get them here. Stop yakking and give me some real meat to chew, or humble pie to swallow if need be. --One Salient Oversight 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I had not even noticed that you reverted it. But, the point is that *I* am not the one that needs to bring facts. In a case like this YOU need to support a claim before you put it on wikipedia. My simply pointing out that you have not done so to the satisfaction of any standard except some floating definitions that you personally have made for this page which you seem more then open to changing as long as it lets you include whatever you want is enough. However, I did point out that that one of the references you linked to even had a quote form his book which should preclude his writings being taken as prophecy. That said I can see that you are not at all reasonable about this subject so having failed to find my old copy of his books I will see if I can lay hands on some and come back with specific references. Incidentally, other than strongly disagreeing with your including of the JW stuff under the heading "Christian prophecy" since no Christian denominations recognize them and they recognize no Christian denominations, the actual details of the prophecy's that you are currently waring over do seem to be on your side. If only you were as meticulous when it came to everything else. Dalf | Talk 08:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Dalf, I'll say it again so that you can at least approach your task with some confidence: I am willing to admit that I am wrong and eat humble pie if the facts go against me. If you can find a quote from a book, or a (semi-reputable) website, which contains a direct quote from Hal Lindsey where he denies that he ever made a 1988 prophecy... then I will most likely concede. Even if you can find a verifiable quote from Lindsey about modern-day prophecy in general, it should be of use in your case.

As it stands, my proof is based upon the text of The Late Great Planet Earth and quotes from another Lindsey book that I mentioned above.

--One Salient Oversight 08:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Fresh thoughts from a new visiting admin

When I saw the title of this article I was instantly skeptical as to whether such an article could succeed. In fact, as I surmised what the article might attempt to do, I thought perhaps it was an attempt to list future eschatological beliefs of Christianity. That, I thought, might be interesting. I have not yet read the article, and I am not sure I should at this time. What I have read from this page gives me some idea of the dynamics at play. This article may have a chance. But if so, it needs to clearly state its aim in harmony with our NPOV policy. Here are some questions:

• Is the article clear that it is an expansion of one of the areas that critics have found fault with in Christianity or Christian branches?
• Once we establish that is an article about crtics, are we examining the views of the critics fully?
• Are we making the article meaningful by including the items that have most energized critics?

- Tom Haws 03:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

My first inclination when reading this article was to VfD it right away. I felt that the combination of the title and definitions expounded at the top along with how they are applied by their very nature precluded NPOV. The questions you pose are interesting ones, representing a good way to approach these things. I think I would add one to proceed them and that would be (as I sated above): Does the title and stated goal of the article restrict or disallow the development of NPOV content. I did not and have not VfDed this page yet, because I think if reworked and possibly slightly renamed there is some interesting content that could fill an article like this one. The problem is that the focus of the contributions and the article on the whole, seems far more concerned with taking criticism of various schismatic groups and heretics and associating that criticism with the term Christianity. It is a sort of "they all look the same to me" I am not sure what the official term for this sort of misleading argument is (I am sure there is one) but its definitely bias. There is a significant danger when you let the critic define the group of people he is criticizing! Dalf | Talk 04:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this article had the potential to cause disagreements - obviously the twin arguments I am having with Dalf about Hal Lindsey and 66.158.232.37 about the Jehovah's Witnesses bear this situation out.

The reason for the article existing in the first place is simple - it seeks to record instances throughout the history of the Christian church where well-known individuals or organisations have made prophetic declarations that have not come to pass. All this article attempts to do - or at least MY intention in creating it in the first place - was to be a faithful record of these failed predictions.

Like every single Wikipedia user who creates pages, I did this for my own biased reason. I wanted to ensure that Christians around the world are given clear and reliable information about certain "prophets" who got their prophecies seriously wrong. Through this article, I am hoping that many Christians would become wiser regarding their pastors or church leaders when they start making prophetic declarations.

Nevertheless, the article could not exist with such a deliberate bias and if it had been created as such then it would have been easily vfd'd.

Despite this, however, my own bias, while a reason for this article's creation, does not therefore mean that the article will always been biased. Remember, it is simply an historical record of facts - of actual people who prophesied actual events. This being the case, it would be very hard to justify a vfd.

As a result of this article, debates over various issues will come to a head. Dalf and I disagree sharply over Hal Lindsey. But if this article stands the test of time and remains in Wikipedia for as long as it lasts (5,10,20 years, maybe even more) then the debates and discussions have to be worked out NOW. If Dalf hadn't spoken up about Hal Lindsey, SOMEONE ELSE would have later on. Dalf's argument HAD to be made, even though I obviously believe him to be wrong. This is the argument that had to happen - and future contributors may refer back to it when another person comes along and protests at the Hal Lindsey contributions.

It is imperative, therefore, that all records of unfulfilled prophecies in this article should have either an external link that records the prophecy, or for another Wikipedia article to already contain this record.

Given the nature of this topic, any site given an external link will likely be very biased in its reporting. This is not necessarily a problem since it is illogical to assume that bias always equals unfair reporting of facts. What needs to be done is to check the veracity of the linked site and see whether their arguments and facts are verifiable.

In the example of my disagreements with Dalf and 66.158.232.37 I have used biased sites as my reference point for some of the points in the article. I am personally convinced that they are reliable and thorough despite their bias, which is why I continue to use them as the basis of my arguments. Why trust my own personal conviction? Because I am a university graduate with a degree in Modern History and English Literature, as well as being a high school teacher, and I can tell a badly written argument a mile off.

I obviously don't agree that this article, by being "controversial", demands its renaming or deletion. It is merely an historical record.

--One Salient Oversight 08:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like we are all approaching this with level heads and proper understanding of the goals and realities of Wikipedia. Of course we bring our own biases as OSE very candidly discloses, and of course we edit to represent them fairly. The admonition to us is to discipline our biases and to understand the dynamics of the medium as OSE has explained so well. I think the title of the article is a stumbling block. It fails to inform and properly bookend and inspire the article. And unless a clear title and commission for the article are adopted, I am afraid the article will remain a VfD candidate that is no more than a sneering "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Your prophecies don't come true." The article can explore how others have sneered, but Wikipedia can't sneer or seem to sneer. Tom Haws 15:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I found this article very interesting, but not even close to NPOV. Knowing a little about some of these "prophecies", I can tell you that the groups or religions involved, or the people who made the prophecy, if they are still alive, have probably either (1) re-evaluated their position and determined that it was not really a prophecy after all but rather a speculation, or (2) determined that the prophecy was indeed fulfilled, just in a different way than expected, kind of like how Yoda and Obi Wan came to reinterpret the prophecy about Anakin being the "chosen one" (okay, maybe that's too nerdy of an example). Either way, the POV that the "prophecy" is "unfulfilled" is a point of view to which people would very vocally disagree. COGDEN 22:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Popular vs electoral vote in U.S.

It's hard to follow U.S. presidential elections sometimes, so I undersand where the confusion can come in, but let me try to untangle a recent edit that claimed that the prophesy involving Bush's win in the Presidential campaign was by a large margin (this is untrue):

• The Electoral College – Once the voting in a state is counted, the electoral college for that state will generally put all of their votes behind the winning candidate. As a result, a candidate who wins by 51% to 48% (which was the popular vote outcome in 2004) might win by 286 EC votes to 252 EC votes (a larger margin). Comparisons of the magnitude of a win, are almost always done on the basis of the popular vote, not the EC vote.
• The number of votes – As the baby-boomers hit the age where americans tend to vote in larger numbers (just past retirement age), the electorate is swelling. The fact that both candidates recieved record numbers of votes for first and second place in a U.S. presidential campaign is not surprising.

I hope that this helps to explain why I would revert the anon edit which claimed that Bush won the recent election by a large margin. 3% is considered a moderate margin (not the tiny fraction it sounds like, though). 10% would be a "landslide" by just about anyone's defintion, and in order to claim a definitive margin, I would think you would need at least 5%. That last is personal opinion, but I'm sure presidential election scholars would at least agree that 3% would be a difficult claim to a large margin win at the very least. -Harmil 10:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce entry needed

Edgar Cayce was a prolific prophesier, should he not be included? Or is he not Christian per se?

Lapse in neutriallity

This page can be considered very offensive to Christians, listing things like this. It is a lapse in neutriallity and should either be deleted or sections of it should just be metioned in other articles. Thank you.

Only Christians that stated unfulfilled prophecies, or the bozos that continue to believe them. And we don't really care what liars and conmen think about being exposed.Tommstein 11:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am an evangelical Christian and I created the article! I don't find the article's existance offensive, I find the fact that so-called Christian leaders can predict things that go wrong to be offensive. They insult my faith. --One Salient Oversight 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Two minor predictions removed

I just removed two rather ordinary predictions by Pat Robertson that didn't occur. I think the idea of this page is to reflect "Christian Prophecy": profound insights upon immensely important events: the return of Christ, the appearance of the Antichrist, destruction of the world's governments, famine, war. Pat Robertson predicting whether Bush or Kerry will win is insignificant. Priests, reverends, and preachers predict things all the time that are in the course of ordinary events. If a clergyman predicted oil would cost $100 a barrel in August 2005, would that qualify for listing here? No. I think this page should be reserved for what is ordinarily regarded as "prophecy" in the usual weighty use of the term. Tempshill 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. This is the USAToday story about the prediction:

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Friday he believes God has told him President Bush will be re-elected in a "blowout" in November.

"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his 700 Club program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."

Robertson told viewers he spent several days in prayer at the end of 2003.

"The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."[8]

Notice that Robertson's prophecy meets that described in this article - it is specific, it is measureable and it did not happen. This was not Robertson giving his opinion or whatever, it was him stating to his audience that the Lord had revealed this information to him. I'm reverting the change. --One Salient Oversight 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with One Salient Oversight. If he had been (openly) 'freelancing,' that would be one thing. But when he declares that God has said that something is going to happen, that then becomes a prophecy. When it doesn't happen, it becomes an unfulfilled prophecy. It's not our place to decide that prophecies have to deal with whatever we decide they have to, especially since the page makes no representation about the subjects and importance of the prophecies.Tommstein 03:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tommstein and One Salient Oversight. If he hadn't said it was a divine insight that Bush would win in a blowout, it wouldn't be a "Christian Prophecy", since just a person who happens to be Christian making a prediction about the future doesn't quality for that. But if he said it was from God, and it's a noteworthy enough prediction from a noteworthy enough person (it is), then we shouldn't make POV distinctions between one man's mode of "prophecy" and another. Where would we draw the line on how "immensely important" an event much be to qualify for the list? I doubt anyone would call the reelection of Bush a mundane, everyday event, even if it's not an apocalyptic one. -Silence 03:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

None of this is definitive Christian prophecy! Anything could be argued back and forth as to whether or not it's prophecy. This is nothing but a collection of obscure quotes by various people who claim to have heard from God. As Dalf said in the deletion debate, the article would be more accurately titled Some formal and informal predictions and guesses and statements of opinion made by some people who might have been associated with Christianity either by themselves or by being characterized as such by someone else. This article either needs renamed or deleted. Aiden 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (Adam). The Bible warns very clearly of false teachers. I think this is a perfect example, NONE is Biblical. Anyone could be saying this!

I think the intro makes it quite clear that this is not about biblical prophecy at all:

This page seeks to record events that were prophesied by prophets or leaders within various Christian churches and sects, but which have not come to pass.

That couldn't be much clearer... -Harmil 05:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It also says New Religious Movements that have their original basis in the Christian church are also included here. "New Religious Movements"...? That have their "original basis" in Christianity...? That's Christian prophecy? I don't think so. There is truly no legitimate way to universally recognize a person as a prophet in the Christian sense. This article simply bunches a bunch of people who claim to be Christians together according to what guesses they've made about the future. —Aiden 00:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between "those claiming to be Christian" and "Christans" is a hair that Wikipedia cannot reasonably split, and I fear that your desire to remove a perceived taint against Christianity is clouding your better judgement on this point. The disclaimers in the intro are very, very strong and even refer to the potential heresy of many of the prophesies. To lead off by referring to "claimed 'Christians'" is a bit like leading off a political scandal with, "claimed 'Democrats'" (or insert party of choice there). It adds a strongly POV slant to an otherwise non-controversial sentence. -Harmil 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One further point here: if you look above at the discussion surrounding the removal of Pat Robertson's comment about God telling him that George Bush would win in a blowout, you will note an interesting statement that I agree with, and I think applies here. These are predictions made by people who tell us that God (the Christian God) told them that they would come true. We're not making value judgements about Christian prophesy or the idea that one prophesy is "ISO Christian 9002 certified" or anything like that. We're just asserting that these are all of the events were someone said "God talked to me" or "the (Christian) Bible tells us that..." and they appear to have been wrong (or God was, but that's not something Wikipedia can get into). -Harmil 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the lack of disclaimer. The disclaimer does do an ok job of describing the contents of the article. The problem is the dicotomy between the disclaimer and the title. That is a sort of bate and switch/straw man attack that I do not feel comes even close to qualifying as NPOV. Dalf | Talk 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that and including 'prophecies' made by people who specificaly said they were not making a prophecy. Dalf | Talk 06:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dalf, good compromise. I edited it a bit, but I think your insight is a good one here. "self identification" is an excellent way to cover the whole concept! Thanks. -Harmil 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still bothered reading that sentence about the grammar of "which". I am bad at grammar I think can anyone tell meif I got that right or if "who" would be more approprate. I suppose if I sat and thought about it and looked it up I coudl probbly figure it out. Dalf | Talk 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)