Talk:Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions

Martin Luther Prophecy

I have removed this entry for several reasons:

As a Luther scholar of a sort, I have never heard of Luther making a statement that either he, his companions or students of any generation took seriously as a prophecy.
# It is hard for me to figure out what the source the book cited has for this passage, although it appears to be Table Talk. Luther scholars rarely cite this work because the accuracy of those writing down Luther's words has been often questioned.
# It has all the feel of a typical Luther rhetorical exaggeration, not meant to be taken seriously.

It is as follows:

1830-1850: Martin Luther had predicted the Second Coming would happen during this time period.

^ The Familiar Discourses Of Dr. Martin Luther, translated by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby (London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818), 7, 8. "I persuade myself verily it will not be absent full three hundred years longer."

If no one objects, I will leave it off the page. If there is an objection, I will try to pin down the actual quote. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth it doesn't even sound like a prophecy, it sounds like a personal opinion, thats not exactly fair game for this page anyway..... Homestarmy 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... --Oscillate 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looked well referenced to me, but I have never heard of that book so I can't say if it is accurate or not --T-rex 23:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table talk is a collection of sayings that Luther and his friends made while dining at Luther's home. These were written down by folks with a varying degree of accuracy. The most we can say about these sayings is that Luther may have said some thing likr this -- maybe. 8-) That and what Homes said; it's not really a prophecy. --CTSWyneken 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, if a specific entry in this list could not reasonably be re-phrased as "so-and-so said that the Christian God told them / gave them the power to predict that ..." then it should be removed post-haste. This is one of the core problems that I've had with switching the title of the article from "prophecy" to "predictions". It opens the door to this becoming a collection of musings by any random Christian instead of a collection of prophecies associated with Christian faith throughout its existance (as every religion has had, I'm certainly not saying this is in any way a "deficiency" of Christianity). -Harmil 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think the article will become important if it's just "predictions", so probably so much for me getting to help people beware of false prophets..... :(. Homestarmy 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmil you are one of the people who voted for "predictions" rather then "prophecy" --T-rex 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to attend to citations

This page especially needs to be very carefully cited. --CTSWyneken 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using primary sources or at least the actual text of the prophecies, an number of the entries are pretty bad cases of putting words in someone's mouth or implying rather more than was said. Dalf | Talk 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey and Israel

Look, we have solid attribution here, and this insistence on removing Lindsey's claims (which he claimed were based on scripture) is just silly. The full quote is very clear. It bases its claims on scripture, and specfically refers to them as "The prophetic indication". I will soften the statement slightly, as Lindsey did say "could", but the work done on annotating Lindsey's book is an excellent resource, and claims that it is somehow biased... well, if most Wikipedia articles were as fact-oriented and well referenced as that page, I'd be a happier camper. Please refrain from further removal of that text without discussion. Thanks. -Harmil 06:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article for unfulfilled Prophecy not inaccurate interpretation of prophecy, there is a difference. Further since Hal Lendsey goes to such length to say that he is not a prophet and since not only did he say could he also did not give a date then putting it in a time line seems a bit wrong to me. Those entries do not belong in a time line nor in an article on prophecy, nor in an article about unfulfilled since the near future is subjectively still at hand.

My point that we should reference the book directly and not a web page taking excerpts out of the book still stands. Further that article has a tendency to misinterpret Mr. Lindsey by ignoring the disclaimers liberally sprinkled thourgout his book. The point I am trying to make and the fundamental error of the resource you are citing here can be found on the conclusion to the article. It shows that the whole article is been written on a false premise:

For that reason, Hal Lindsey must suffer rejection as a prophet, according to the command of God

The whole article is working on the permits that Mr. Lindsey is trying to give prophecy rather than scholarly analysis of prophecy based on his personal (not divinely inspired) beliefs. If you want to split hairs and look for any instance in which he seems to use language that implies that he is speaking through divine inspiration then that is fine but if you are going to split hairs then it is only fair to not accuse him of saying things he did not and putting dates on "predictions" that came with out them is dishonest at best. Dalf | Talk 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just quote from the introduction to the article:

The "prophets" listed here include anyone who has prophesied about the future within visible Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) — even where they were considered heretical, at the time or later. New Religious Movements that have their original basis in the Christian church are also included here. It should also be noted that the vast majority of Christians have never believed in these extra-Biblical prophecies.

Now it seems to me that Lindsey fits this description exactly. What do you think? Tex 15:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that:

He was making and not giving interpretation of Prophecy?
That prophets speak in conditionals?
That the date range 1980's was given somewhere in the quote from his book?

On its own #3 is sufficent to exclude these entries as it makes them factually incorrect. We have no right just because we don't like him to put woprds in his mouth for the purpose of discrediting him (which is also why I objected to using the secondary source of the website set up to discredit him rather than his books for "things that he is purported to have written"). One of the things that struck me as NPOV about this article that I have always had trouble putting my finger on until now is that we take the most "benifit of the doubt" stance about calling anyone who wants to be callsed such christian, but then take the opposit tact in labling what they have said as unfulfilled prophecy. In this case I dare say Mr. Lindsey would say everything that I have said about the rist of the predictions and point to a somewhat large amount of evidence that his second prediction is well on its way to comming true (though he never actually put the second one is quite as strong of terms as we have quoted him he said the leadership of many denomanations who have not offically said that they did not think the bible was literal would "begin to go down hill as well". Dalf | Talk 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's go by number. However, I don't see that your numbered points stand in contradiction to the introduction that I quoted.

If I get my old dictionary out and look under prophesy, it says 1. to declare or predict (something) by or as by the influence of divine guidance; hence, 2. to predict (a future event) in any way. So, yes, I think that I, and most native speakers of English, would say that Hal Lindsey definitely undertook to prophesy about the future, according to either definition. I would also say that if he was giving interpretation of prophecy, he just might be doing that with divine guidance. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't claim to know. I suppose I think that if a conditional expression was consistent with the divine guidance a putative prophet had, then he or she would use it. I wouldn't venture to say that no prophet ever spoke in conditionals; apparently you think so. They have been known to speak in riddles, though, or there wouldn't be a minor industry in interpreting prophecy, would there?
Without a copy of his book at hand, I wouldn't care to offer an opinion. I am old enough, however, to remember that most readers of his book somehow got the idea that the 1980's were the time frame of his predictions, and he didn't attempt to persuade them otherwise. Apparently not only did Lindsey interpret prophecy, but we now need someone to interpret Lindsey.

Thanks for a stimulating discussion... Tex 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And replying by number:

The definition of prophecy:
- Prophecy in a religious context has a slightly different meaning (the first oneyou listed). As a rule we like to be percise in wikipedia and the colloquial meannings of words are only appealed too when there is no ambiguity of fact.
- The argument that he just might be doing that with divine guidance is also problematic because, might does not get you into an encyclopedia, might be true is not good enough especially when the person in question had specifically said otherwise. In this case Mr. Lindsey has said he was not thougth out the book in question. Putting words in his mouth is one thing claiming a might when he is said the opposite is dishonesty. I have ordered a copy of his book and will be providing (primary) references of his disclaiming being a prophet or that he thinks his interpretation was under divine guidance.
The point is you can't say that a prediction was unfulfilled if the prediction was never made. If I say it might rain tomorrow have have not predicted anything I have made a statement of probability, that means that regardless of the weather tomorrow my statement was neither true nor false because it did presume either condition. Further if I said "I believe that it will rain tomorrow" still I have made no prediction, I have made a statement of fact about myself NOT the weather. Even the less strict nonreligious definition of prophecy which does not include divine guidance does not obtain here. In general and especially on controversial topics taking liberties with the language to prove a person or group of people wrong is not appropriate on wikipedia.
I read his book about 15 or so years ago, I think there were several places in the book where he did say he personally felt that the time period between the publishing of the book and the end of the millennium was a very likely time period but every time he did so he qualified it that he believed that it was a sin to actually make predictions of dates. He went to significant pains to say that he was NOT claiming that the prophecies he was studying implied those dates but that his personal belief was that he was seeing the signs. I have just order a copy of the book as I stated and will provide actual excerpts with page numbers, but I think it says a lot about neutrality to take someones words remove the part where they disclaim that the words are anything but a personal opinion and then label them as prophecy associate them with a religion then use it as evidence of failed prophecy in that religion.

Dalf | Talk 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to return to such an old point, but I think we're muddling two terms which have been flung around in this conversation. One is "prophet". The other is "prophecy". "The Stand is actually a warning, which predicts the coming plague," is a prophecy, but if I say that, I'm not the prophet. I am, in fact, pointing the finger at Stephen King as the prophet in question. If I were to do that (and The Stand were a holy book of Christianity), then you could include me on this page, saying that I said that. It is, after all Christian (for sake of my contrived example) and also quite clearly prophecy.

Now, if there is a clear disclaimer about the dates, and we can cite that, then the entry should be left out, certainly. Let's get a page number on the disclaimer and I'll certainly back the removal. -Harmil 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy with the first definition I quoted. Note that it says "by or as by the influence of divine guidance." Here when it says "as by" I take that to mean "as if by". I wanted to check that, and the very next dictionary I tried (Oxford American) says, "to declare beforehand (what will happen), to foretell things as if by divine inspiration." No doubt you are thinking he didn't foretell things as if by the influence of divine guidance. We shall come to that later.
- I don't think that I put my words into Hal Lindsey's mouth. It is clear, however, that you don't hesitate to do so, when it suits your argument. Of that, there is direct proof. (see above, "I dare say Mr. Lindsey would say everything I have said...")
I find your example about predicting rain very instructive. Let us take it a step further. Suppose you went on television every day for 35 years as a weatherman and said that it might rain, and it never did. And then suppose you tried to tell your listeners that you hadn't really made any predictions, because you only said it might rain! Your listeners would still say that you were a lousy weatherman. And this is precisely the position in which Hal Lindsey finds himself.
It is interesting to note that you read his book (Late Great Planet Earth) fifteen years ago. It was twenty years old at that time. Stacks of these books were blocking the aisles of every used book store in America, their original owners having long since tumbled to the fact that the events foretold were not forthcoming. What is more, by that time, he had also published yet another book, in 1980, titled "The 80's: Countdown to Armageddon". It is difficult to see how he could have meant to do anything by using such a title, other than imply that the 80's were the decade that would bring Armageddon. But no, you tell me he had escape clauses in the book! Well, that is exactly what our hypothetical weatherman said.
But enough of bandying words. Here are the facts. In 1970, Hal Lindsey published a best-selling book that predicted, by referring to the Bible, many events which, if they took place, would be of great importance to everyone. Literally millions of people bought the book, somehow under the impression that the author had an inside track to predicting the future of the world. Then, in 1980, he published the book I have cited, obviously meaning to reinforce the impression that the 80's were going to be the decade that brought Armageddon. It is perfectly clear that most of the purchasers of those books were relying on Lindsey's status as a Christian clergyman. They were not expecting to get mere idle speculation on the future of the Earth by a guy named Hal. They were expecting to learn the meaning of Biblical prophecy, as revealed to them by someone whose calling is to mediate between God and man. In the event, all his predictions turned out to be not just wrong, but spectacularly so. And all his believers were disappointed, or almost all. And everything in this paragraph is as plain as the nose on your face, and you know it perfectly well.

No amount of disclaimers, weasel words, or legalistic, logic-chopping arguments can dispel the glaringly obvious fact that Hal Lindsey convinced millions of people to give credence to his predictions, based on his status as a Christian clergyman and a student of the Bible. They thought he was speaking with the force of divine prophecy, his many disclaimers which you cite to the contrary notwithstanding. Now I put it to you that if you cause millions of people to believe you are a prophet, and then all your predictions turn out to be miserable failures, and all those people find they were deluded, then you are a prime candidate for listing in this article.
What is at stake here is whether Hal Lindsey's prophecies go on a list in Wikipedia, frankly not a big deal as far as I am concerned. But if you want a prophecy, here's one you can rely on. Hal Lindsey will go down in history on the list of those who have purveyed false prophecies under color of the Christian religion, a distinction he richly deserves.

I'm surprised I have to explain these things. Tex 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tex seems pretty right about this :/. Plus, now that the title of the article basically includes everything, it seems pretty clear Mr. Lindsey predicted at the least something, in an empirically measurable manner, which was most certainly rendered falsified. What's the problem? Homestarmy 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say that I have no clue who Hal Lindsey is, but obviouslly there is enough discussion here to show that it is warented within the article, if we are worried about this being taken out of context then we may as well just include a lengthy quote ([1]), a full quote shouldn't be debatable --T-rex 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. -Harmil 04:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. The longer a quote you use, the better, within reason. Tex 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heh the article got moved I was working on the assumption that there was going to be a persistant fight over that. In that event (with the word prophecy removed) form the title and depending on how the opening paragraph is worded I with draw most of my objections. I still object to listing the 80's but you can leave it there for now untill I find actual refrences to his saying otherwise. Doh! I gues I shoudl read all the comments before I reply. I still think we should make sure that we are carful about what we say he is saying. I think actual quotes would do rather than highlevel paraphrasing based on book titles. I also still think that Hal Lindsey is the right place if you really want to devote some time to calling him a quack. Dalf | Talk 08:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to respond here again tot he numbered points, but first I want to respond to the Stephen King example. In that example if you were not making a prophecy but instead stating a conclusion form it then, form this article you woudl need to list the ACTUAL prophecy in quesiton and the basis for concluding fomr that prophecy that it ment what you were saying and based on the solidity of that basis that the prophecy was therefor unfullfilled. In other words, and moving away fomr this example, Hal lendsy saying that any specific biblical prophecy means X and then X not happeneing does not maked the prophecy itself wrong. It makes his intrapratation of it wrong without implying the rightness or wrongness of the prophecy itself. Someone above mentioned that many prophecyies are written as riddles, if I listen to one and think I have it figured out and then we fined out I am wrong does that make the prophecy itself wrong or just make me a fool? Hal Lindsey speaks boldly about what he thinks "it all means" and on a great many things I personally think he is wrong, but they are just is solution to the riddles and nothing more.

I misspoke when I said "I dare say" I was not putting words in his mouth what I shoudl have said "He has said as much", the "I dare say" was simply applying the things he has said to this specific situation. That is he has not as far as I know seen this page but he did write a section in his book about people who will accuse him of trying to be a prophet. I spoke in conditionals since I have not actually read anythign by him for about 15 years. When amazon sends me his book I will find a actual quote. You on the other hand take his words out of context and directly contradict the words you have left out. THe fact that the disclimer may not have appeard on the same page is immateral since you are appelaing to implications elsewhere in his writing for your timeline. Its that sort of double standard that I object too.

You say: I find your example about predicting rain very instructive. and in doing so you maike the exact same mistake with me that you are making in the article. My example was NOT one of predicting that was infact my whole point. The point was in that case, I was talking about makeing a (possibly informed) statment of belief. You are right in the contenuation of your example it would make me a lousy weather man and I don't think that Mr. Lindsey is got a lot to stand on for a lot of the stuff that he says, but just because he is someoen who's beliefs on a great many thigns are a bit out there does not mean that you can say things that are simply not true about him on wikipedia. Saying that he is essentially claiming divine guidance in his writings (which is as you said you accept the first definition) what you are saying. When he not only never claims he is doing so but specificially disclaimes it is wrong, and I am inclined to ass {{totallydisputed}} if it goes back in the article.

Again my example did not actually include a weather man only myself stating a possibility. I actually saw and read part of (though nto the whole thing) the second book which you refer to, and if you look at the book you will see that there is no need to guess what he ment by the title, infact there are a number of pages after the cover in which he details what he means by the title. I wont repeat what I write above but suffice it to say that no where in that book does he actually say that the end of the world *IS* comming in or at the end of the 80's. Call it hyperboli, if you will, do I think he believed it? He writes in it that really thinks its a possibility that it [armageddon] could be tomorrow, but then he also says it coudl be in 100 years.

I can agree with almost every word of your 4th point I might quibble with one or two words but for the sake of argument let us say I agree with you. Infact let me add emphisis to the parts of your argument that align with the poitns I am trying to make:
It is perfectly clear that most of the purchasers of those books were relying on Lindsey's status as a Christian clergyman.

They were expecting to learn the meaning of Biblical prophecy

This is to me a convincing argument that he is a quack. Infact if you want to lay out the evidence that he is a quack and document it then you shoudl feel very much empowered to add that to the approprate article, but you are wrong on one part of yoru 4th point. You are right that they were not expecting to get mere idle speculation no they were expecting the OPNION of a respected Christian clergyman. That is what they got, I might take issue with exactly how you charterize the quality of what they got but the thing that is as clear as the nose on your face is that it does not belong in this article. Dalf | Talk 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Roberts (1981)

The article states: "Acting on the commands of a 900-foot-tall Jesus, Oral Roberts builds the City of Faith Medical Center." The source (NYT) backs this up. Wikipedia's article on Oral Roberts backs this up. So what's unfulfilled? The hospital was built and used for 8 years before being turned into the Orthopedic Hospital of Oklahoma. If no case is made for keeping this line (with additional information showing a prophecy was unfulfilled), I propose it be dropped. Comments?--Kibbitzer 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see it, the problem was it never found a cure for cancer like Oral said it would I think, did it turn into a compleatly orthopedic clinic or what? Homestarmy 23:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The building of the hospital is one entry (1981)--and it was built. The cancer cure is a 1983 entry that says there'd be a cure for cancer in "a few decades"--again, that doesn't seem to be a problem, especially if "a few decades" means 3 or 4. Both entries seem very weak, unless there are more details I/we are unaware of--and it's just that these entries need to be better presented. Otherwise, I suggest their removal.--Kibbitzer 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Few decades" is also a bit problematic, as 1 day can be 1,000 years to God :). Therefore, I agree that this entry should probably be removed. Homestarmy 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does (the title) "Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians" mean "those yet to be fulfilled", or "Look at all the false or mistaken predictions by 'Christians' [or Jews or Muslims or Hindus, etc.]"--which has a distinct prejudicial tone? Also, there's no hermeneutical consideration, as there are multiple ways to interpret prophecies--some prophecies are literal, others allegorical, and there are physical and/or spiritual fulfillments--not to speak of those that are conditional.

Just a list of seeming unfulfilled predictions seems shallow and has a "nya, nya" tone. What can be done to make this article more worthwhile? Are we talking about making a list of heretical predictions? That's more clearcut, but perhaps there are more positive ways to use our time. A list of fulfilled predictions sounds fun.

To sum it up, there are (at least) two possible deletions due to weak statements, and possible insertion of the "interpretation of predictions" factor. Food for thought: Are any of Nostradamus's historical predictions unfulfilled? (His Wikipedia article reports that he generally had good relations with the Church.)--Kibbitzer 02:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem with the current title, unfulfilled predictions just plain apply to a much more wider field than outright prophecy :/. I was in favor of "Prophecy by Christians", but it seems we lost it badly in the runoff because people wanted the predictions one far more :/. I think we're going by the introductions definition however, which definently deals more with prophecy than predictions, but with the title seemingly contradicting the introduction, it does seem a bit odd. These prophecies that are being noted should be exactly as the intro states, emiprically measurable and falsifiable, for example there aren't too many ways to take "And a giant meteor will hit the earth next year!" allegorically, and of those ways, they don't take away or replace the literal definition of such prophecies. So for instance if you had a New Age prophet who said something like "The next echelon of human evolution to a higher planar of existentionalization will occur within the time period of 1/3rd past the equinox of 1987 and the events of an as-of-yet un-named and obscure ritual known as "farfigtuban" That kind of wouldn't belong in the article. Homestarmy 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the idea behind the vision of the 900ft Jesus giving instructions was that Oral Roberts believed that God wanted him to build the City of Faith medical center. The fact that it closed down after less than a decade with its promise unfulfilled essentially means that the prediction that it would be used by God to cure cancer was flawed. --One Salient Oversight 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying Roberts built a medical facility in response to his (1981) encounter with a 900-foot-tall entity said to be Jesus. And that at that facility (according to the 1983 entry) a cure for cancer would be found "in a few decades"? If so, perhaps the entries could be edited to reflect those linked points, as currently they are completely separate and unattached.--Kibbitzer 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Additions

Johanneum... I like what you've done! It may need a little wikifying to meet the Style Manual standards, but I think people will step up to help. Tex 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is good, but, Johanneum, can you confirm this is not copyright violation? That's a lot of material to have dumped in one go. JGF Wilks 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther (Again)

I'm at a loss as to how this is a prophecy or a prediction of a time-specific nature. There is a difference between "God has told me this will happen next year" and the general conviction, held by a very large number of Christians that theirs are the last days. If we go there, almost every Christian leader throughout history will go on the list.

Does anyone object to removing this and any general feeling that so and so believed they were living in the last days, from this page? --CTSWyneken 11:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an objection, unless a specific year or time period is named in a prediction or prophecy, there isn't much grounds for it to be on this page :/. I mean "soon" to God could be a day or 1000 years, and for us, its at the very least a vauge term. Homestarmy 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you believe you are, as you say, "living in the last days", that amounts to a prediction that the last days will occur during your life. If you then die, and the last days haven't occurred, that prediction was incorrect -- especially so if another few hundred years ensue. It would appear from the entry, that Luther not only believed this, but communicated a sense of urgency to his contemporaries.

So, yes, I would object to a general removal of this type of item from the page. At the very least, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

PS It's getting to be time to archive some of the above discussions, I think... Tex 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will not remove it. Someone needs to add St. Peter, Paul and John, all of the early church fathers, almost every medival figure, especially those who lived in the 10th Century, Reformed fathers, and me, since I once thought so. (although now I leave the whole thing to Jesus, Who will come at the end of days, or the end of my days, whichever comes first. I suppose that Homes should be listed, too... ;-)--CTSWyneken 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in the last days too, yaaay! Just cus we're in them doesn't mean they'll come soon in our understanding of the word :). I mean people were in World War 2 but um, well, not all of them were there to see it end..... Homestarmy 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tex, I agree with your PS. I've archived the debate on re-naming as it should probably be kept together where it can be referenced as a single discussion. -Harmil 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the debate over removing Luther's comments... I think they should be kept, but I also think that it should be moved. We should have a section at the start of the article, something like this:

End time predictions

There are three forms of end time predictions:

General statements about impending end times
Interpretations of scripture
Specific predictions of a prophetic nature

Famous figures such as Saint Peter^{[citation needed]}, Martin Luther^{[citation needed]} and many others throughout history have made general statements suggesting that they believed the end time to be near at hand, but without providing a specific time-frame, these statements fall outside of the scope of this article. As an example to the contrary, Martin Luther said, "For my part, I am sure that the day of judgment is just around the corner." This statement seems to make specific predictions, but because "just around the corner" can be interpreted in many ways, and the statement cannot be clearly defined as a "prophecy", it is not suitable for this list.

In the final two cases, examples are evaluated on the basis of their notability, independent predictive qualities, and available disproof.

I hope this suggestion helps. I'll stay out of it either way. -Harmil 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree witht he majority of the edit. I think a fundamental problem is trying to discern when a man speaks as a man and when is he speaking as a prophet. The Joseph Smith "prophecy" as it is termed is, nor was it ever, held to be a acutal prophecy. Were it so, it would have been included in LDS cannon scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants. This book was specifically reserved for revelations of the prophet Joseph Smith.

The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do the LDS people believe these are the last days? Most definitely. Does the church or any of the latter-day prophets define a day of the return of Christ? None to my knowledge. The early apostles spoke of the last days in their time, many have spoken throughout the last 2000 years of the last days throughout Christiandom, but we have yet to see the 2nd comming of the Savior to the earth.

We did choose the title "predictions" so maybe we do include everything, but with the caveat and distinction that none of these predictions were spoken as prophecy or held to be such. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Luther, they were not seen as predictions, but rhetoric. He loved hyperbole. --CTSWyneken 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote from Headley in the entry may be taken at face value, Luther had a sense of urgency in his work, based on the belief that the end was at hand. This belief seems to have been communicated to his contemporaries, at least to Nachenmoser, who was serious enough to write a book on the subject. The evidence presented in the entry, then, weighs in against Luther's end times statements as being merely rhetorical or hyperbolic in nature. Is there any evidence which can be quoted, to the contrary? Tex 11:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it applies to Luther, but Harmil's point is something that needs to be considered for most everything on this page --T-rex 22:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless. To use hyperbole, almost everything Luther said was hyperbolic. 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox

Where any of the sources cited actually Orthodox as claimed in the beginning? Montanus was a heretic and certainly not Orthodox.

Many of St. Kosma Aitolos came true, and many that have not yet come true are consistent with nuclear war. See:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Kosmas_Aitolos

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/St.%20Kosmas.htm

Read II Esdras last two chapters, and note that stars and hydrogen bombs are powered by nuclear fusion.

Edward Irving

Edward Irving is described in this article as the founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church. However, Irving's own article says he is widely but incorrectly thought to be the founder. It does not follow the matter, unfortunately, but the article on the Church itself says that its members regard Irving to be in a similar relation as regards the Church as John the Baptist was to the early Christian Church: not the founder, but a paver of the way. Can we clear this up? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crist Governor of Florida Prediction

I'm surprised to see that the Dozier prediction that Charlie Crist would be the next governor of Florida has been removed. It's a prediction, it's unfulfilled--as yet. If Election Day comes and the prediction is fulfilled, that should be the time to remove it.

Tex 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is it a prophecy? Even though the title is mis-leading, the intro still says this is on prophecies, not predictions :/. Homestarmy 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think i removed this. because it implies that he will not be elected governer, please wait until after the election, if he doesn't win then add it to the list, but if he does then it doesn't belong here, until november we do not know --T-rex 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to "the intro", here's what it says... "This page attempts to list time-specific historical predictions (or prophecy)".

Tex 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it used to say just "prophecy"? We shouldn't make an indiscriminitly large collection of various Christians making bad predictions about everything from politics to world events, that doesn't strike me as having any sort of point at all. Homestarmy 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you remember, that argument was made during the last renaming of the article. I was in agreement at that time. For my part, I have been sticking to predictions that have the explicit claim of divine inspiration, like the Dozier prediction.

Tex 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Robertson Prediction

Here's another one from P-Rob I'd like to insert. It is true that things could still turn around for the Bush administration, but right now, "a series of dramatic victories" is not the description that would occur to many people. Any objections? Or should we wait for the verdict of history in forty or fifty years?

"Well, the Lord has some very encouraging news for George Bush ... What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff. ... He'll have Social Security reform passed. He'll have tax reform passed. He'll have conservative judges on the courts. And that basically he is positioned for a series of dramatic victories which I hope will hearten him and his advisers. They don't have to be timid in this matter because the wind is blowing at his back, and he can move forward boldly and get results." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 3, 2005

Tex 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on this one at all?

Tex 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He vetoed that stem cell thing, does that count? :). I think there's probably still time to wait for this one however. Homestarmy 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now?

Tex 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know things look bad, but I really think even though its fairly obvious how this'll end up, its still crystal balling :/. Homestarmy 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries and Dates

The Baptist Church also has a history of date and time predictions that have failed. One of the first Baptist groups "the Anabaptists of the early Sixteenth Century believed that the Millennium would occur in 1533." - Surely this is a contradiction in terms? Will someone please edit this out with whatever it's supposed to say? Mahakala 04:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the twentieth century was 1901-2000, the sixteenth century was 1501-1600. So people in the early sixteenth century could have expected the millennium in 1533 without any logical problems. There was no year zero, so the first century was 1 CE to 100 CE. You continue counting from there. The second century was 101 to 200, and so on, counting 100 years in a century. Tex 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't follow --T-rex 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best explanation I can give. Perhaps the articles on the 16th century or century as a unit of time will help.

Tex 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone

The article is written in an inappropriate tone. Comments such as:

"The Roman Catholic Church also has a history of failed predictions about the "time of the end.""

"In volume II of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, author Leroy Edwin Froom tells us about a prominent Anglican prelate..."

"No more needs to be said about this prediction."

are hardly the types of things you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Hence I have added the template.

It is also evident that the article is in further need of general cleanup; I will try to help out with this when I can. BenC7 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points, though the direction of this article is still somewhat obscure. I suspect many of the prophecies may still not have adequate references, it's possible some of them aren't even supposed to be here. Homestarmy 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

There is as lists of religions changing in a list by dates. Shouldn't that be two lists?

In the list by dates ordered by the time that the prediciton was made or the time the prediction should have happened?

Bibliography

I'm posting a request for the Harvard refernces to be listed & crosslinked in a new section: 'Bibliography', right above the section 'References'.100110100 09:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view

This whole page seems to violate the NPOV policy of wikipedia. I was unable to find similar pages for unfulfilled historical predictions by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, or any other religion I can think of. Why should Christians be singled out? Do they have a greater tendency towards fuzzy prediction? If so, include that in the article and heavily source it. Otherwise I would suggest that this whole page be grouped with another page about false predictions, either in general or as specifically part of religion. GutterMonkey 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what has happened is that so many people who claim to be Christians often make very , and yet highly notable prophecies, which have occasionally profoundly affected the western world. I think the most notable of them all would be the Millerite thing since that was huge back when it was supposed to come to pass and the entire failed prophecy got spun into something influencing the creation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, though many faulty sorts of prophecies often end up in the media occasionally. Homestarmy 23:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gutter, you may have a point and the question should be addressed again or in more detail. Personally, it is a gray area and I have yet to come to a conclusion.

Christianity does seem to produce its fair share of prophecy. This is evident from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus when the apostles proclaimed His return was imminent. Since that time Christians have been in a state of expectant hope and faith. I suspect that many individuals’ desires overcame their personal sense for the Spirit and thus we have ended up with false prophecies. I tend to think of them as unfulfilled hopes, but false nonetheless.

The question remains, does this article violate WP:NPOV or not? We need input from others before any decision could be made. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent some time in Catholic school and grown up in a (mostly) Christian household, I am more than familiar with the copious amounts of predictions that come out of Christian mouthes, and that point about historical predictions (the Millerate thing in particular) is a good one. But the earlier discussion about an inappropriate tone in this article plus the fact that this is the only page of its kind kinda screams witch hunt at me. I'm looking on Google and I can't find anything pointing to Christians being any MORE prone to making things up than any other religion. Perhaps somebody better at finding stuff than I am could get a link or two, but considering the magnitude of the claim (2.1 billion people follow a religion that is noticeably more prone to pulling things out of its rear than most other comparable belief systems) they would need to some seriously heavy sources. If, as I suspect, no such evidence could be found, then perhaps pages for unfulfilled predictions of other major religions could be created or the historically significant examples from this page (again, Millerates and other predictions of such magnitude) could be folded into failed predictions or prophecy or some other such page where a list of unfulfilled Christian predictions could fit nicely alongside a list of other unfulfilled religious predictions, should people wish to add them. Maybe a page dedicated to religious predictions in general would fit the bill. GutterMonkey 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this article doesn't state anywhere that Christians who make bad prophecies are "making them up". It's not our religion that's making bad prophecies, its the people who claim to be a part of it. We had a huge fight over the title of this page concerning the issue, I wished it had said "prophecies" instead of predictions because that's so much more clear, but alas, now the page's mission is only defined by majority opinion as opposed to the meaning of the title. (Literally speaking, this title would be a horrible choice for an article, since it could encompass any bad prediction propechy or not made by anyone claiming to be a Christian). There was a short discussion about merging other religions into this article somehow, but the problem is I suspect most of the material would still be about Christianity, since there's the most notability there. (I suspect if we dug enough New Age type religions would surpass it, but then the article might be making an implicit statement about a religion based on how much material on them is on this page). Homestarmy 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Why should Christians be singled out?" -- Who's saying they should be? Feel free to create similar articles if you have enough sourced material to base it on something. Just because there's only one page doesn't imply there should be no others, or that one religion should be singled out. Wikipedia articles are often written in the order material exist for them. Please don't make this into something it isn't. -- 213.114.118.87 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Pat R prediction

TERRORISM 2007: PAT ROBERTSON HAS BEEN TALKING TO GOD AGAIN.
During a recent prayer retreat, God told him that a terrorist attack on the U.S. late in 2007 will result in a "mass killing".
Robertson relayed God's message to "The 700 Club" on Tuesday.
"The Lord didn't say nuclear, but I do believe it will be something like that." "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

--Tex 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes I miss"? I gotta say, that sounds kind of desperate, none of the prophets in the Bible "missed", and true prophets are only supposed to get everything right....But anyway, I guess we'll see what happens eh. Homestarmy 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should only be included in the article if it fails to materialize. We can't keep track of ever possible prediction made by everyone, but if he's proven wrong it might be worth noting. —Aiden 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BENC7&Jehovah's Witnesses

Ben it appears your hatred is becoming obsessive. Ben I quoted what they actually did say, and you replied, "who said anything about Franz." What Franz said is what they taught! Can you please show even one article that supports what you continue to present? This is an encyclopedia, please try and put your personal beliefs and feelings, about a religion, away and present facts. The facts are they did highlight the potential and the possibility or even probability, However they did not say it would but it could. Ben there is not excuse for this misbehavior. Please live up to the standards of Wiki. We have been thru this enough. Johanneum 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....Is something going on here? :/ Homestarmy 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff to be removed

There are several things in here that are inacurate. First of all you stated that these prophecies are excepted by most Christians. That, is an outright, biased, intentional lie meant to make the church look like a bunch of idiots. Wikipedia is not the place to practice such malice. I have been a christian for many years and have been in a missionary family since I was 2. I can state as an observed fact that most of these prophecies, at least the modern ones, are laughed at by all except a small handful. What is the point of this article? I believe that you are using it to intentionally attack the church. If I made an article on failed profecies of the muslims, everyone would be outraged. I'm making it clear that I'm not outraged, just very troubled by your efforts and I am going to try to stop them. Another thing that is inaccurate about this article is the inclusion of the Mormons and Jehova's Wittnesses as Christian groups. Only an ignorant person could do that much research and not realise that these two groups are strongly rejected as cults by Christians. Do your research. Also, I've done alot of study on church history, and have never heard of many of these. Saksjn 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I never noticed anything like that in the article, in the intro (though it is poorly constructed), it states " It should also be noted that the vast majority of Christians have never believed in these extra-Biblical prophecies.". Alas, this article's future and purpose as a whole is seriously questionable since the title change, a topic with a title as vauge as this probably would of been speedied instantly if it had been created recently, all that keeps it dealing with prophecy at all instead of silly things like not being able to predict what will happen in the future based on personal intuition is the consent of editors, its quite a lousy article title.... Homestarmy 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I skimmed to much and should haveread slower. Besides, I was already a little mad, which I shouldn't have been. Sorry for making a big deal. Saksjn 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define the topic, please.

OK, being saksjn's Wikipartner, I thought I ought to jump in and see what's going on.

I agree with those that say that the title is just too vague and opens the article to being a list of any speculation by anyone related Christianity. As best as I can discern, it's supposed to be about unfulfilled prophesies by leaders of sects/denominations/cults stemming from Christianity, but that is still vague:

What counts as prophecy?
How prominent must a prophet be?
How closely related to Christianity should the sect be?

My thoughts on definitions here:

Prophecy is a prediction, preferably written or published, that was claimed to have been inspired by God and that was intended to be taken literally and definitely.
The prophet in question must hold a following; if all during his/her time disregard the prophet, it doesn't count.
If this is going to include the cults and sects, the title needs to be changed (say, "Unfulfilled prophecies of cults, sects, and denominations related to or stemming from Christianity," although that is painfully long.)

Defining who is a prophet is especially important, due to some churches' doctrines relating to the subject. Some doctrines state that, during the time post-Jesus' ascension, individual believers may receive prophecy from God, but that these statements are not absolute because human subjectivity distorts their messages. Usually, these are personal in nature, and dozens may be made over a week. If the definition of "prophet" is not explicitly stated, these minor prophecies could become included in the article, which ought to be for more definite, hisorically related prophets and their claims.

What are you people's thoughts on this?

--Autumn Forrester 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this may seem a bit too simple, I really think its all in the title. If one of the title's I liked had been picked for this article, I think I would of been all over this place, but its just so lousy there's little guarentee I can see that any work going one way or another on this topic would go towards anything useful if people decided to take the article whatever way they want. I think a more simple definition of prophet than your's would be a bit better, because if the prophet doesn't hold a following, I think their notability on Wikipedia at all is highly suspect. And the same would go for prophecies that aren't actually exclamatory in nature per se, chances are, there aren't going to be many refs for that kind of thing.

I think what the article was trying to encompass wasn't just Christianity, but anything related to groups which claimed to be Christian, however, an article title that has all this "claimed Christians" business just doesn't seem right, and I think several of those kinds of titles all failed. Although I don't like the term, I think it was trying to compass more of the prophecies in the, well, Judeo-Christian historical sense, and minus the "Judeo" part, is a term encompassing enough which, in my experience, seems to cover just about everyone, whether people agree that various groups are actually Christian or not. If there was just some sort of synonym for that term that wasn't far out, that'd be great....

There's also something I never thought about awhile ago I think, and that's over the word "Unfulfilled". The article is talking about prophecies which specifically did not come to pass at the time the so-called prophet in question said it would, but an "unfulfilled" prophecy isn't necessarily like that, for instance, a prophecy that predicts something will happen in 2009 would be unfulfilled right now, but it wouldn't necessarily be failed, because the time hasn't gone past for whatever the prophecy is. The correct word, namely failed, if I remember correctly, was rejected when we voted on titles earlier because, as you may already be thinking, it seemed too negative. However, (and this is just my opinion and idea) it's really not Wikipedia's job to purposefully obscure information on a topic just because the topic highlights something negative that has resulted from self-proclaimed prophets who likely hoodwinked a bunch of people during the course of Christianity-related history, so I seriously think usage of the word "Failed" in the title would be a pretty good idea. (Especially because, as I would hope most fundamentalist types like myself would quickly realize, if its an article on failed prophecies, all of the people contained therein must be false prophets, so there's no logical reason as far as I can tell for people to get defensive unless the article itself is wrong.)

Homestarmy 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.

Alas! There is no synonymn for "religious groups claiming to be or related to Christianity!"

Maybe "expired" would suit the title better than "failed" or "unfulfilled;" it's more specific to the article's purpose.

--Autumn Forrester 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Autumn Forrester on this one, expired is the most correct term. Saksjn 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, an Expired prophecy doesn't necessarily mean one that has failed either, just one in which the time for it to happen has gone by. Homestarmy 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point, the title should be changed because you can only say a prophecy has failed when it's prescribed date has been reached and passed. The change would specify what can go in the article, and only prophecies with passed deadlines would be incuded, making discussion much easier. Saksjn 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would the article then cover both failing and successful prophecies in history? That seems kind of doable, but the level of coverage will vary based on how the article develops over time. Homestarmy 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved paragraph from article to discussion since it self-refers as "discussion"

I undertook to move the following paragraph, having no idea what a long history of revisions and counter-revisions this article has seen, but I'm not surprised. Here's a little hint for anyone who wants to slip a message into a Wikipedia article: Don't self-refer to what you write as "discussion"! That's like painting a big target on your behind. Just spend a little time with the text and weave that passive-aggressive end-times message into it more subtly. The subtle method works, trust me. My Rapture nightmares [see description below] didn't fade away until years after I stopped being bombarded with this sophistry as a youth at Bellevue Baptist Church and that madrasah I attended, Briarcrest Baptist H.S..

- NB: There is a difference between using reason to try and understand Scriptures, and people claiming to have a prophetic word from God about the future. Many of the failed predictions cited below are examples of false prophesy, while others are examples of misinterpretation or misuse of biblical texts. For example, Chuck Smith, of Calvary Chapel, is not prophesying, but trying to interpret the meaning of Jesus' prophecy given almost 2000 years ago, that "Jerusalem shall be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.," (Luke 21:4). What should be noted in this discussion, is the fulfillment of the prophecy by Jesus that Jerusalem would both be destroyed by Rome, its people sent again into exile, and then, at some time in the future, be restored to Jewish hands, a sign which Jesus himself links to the coming of the Kingdom of God and the return of the Son of Man, (Luke 21:5-36).

But all those quirky predictions by televangelists and tent preachers (who likely assume they are exercising scriptural "reason") don't really bother me. It's the more corporate-style dispensationalists who always follow "no man knows the hour" with a pregnant "but," soon followed by justifications for all kinds of foreign and domestic policy non-sequiters, including the wholesale destruction of Creation. If you really believe America will cease to exist as we know it "before this generation shall pass"---regardless of which party holds on to power---then you really ought to recuse yourself from any kind of leadership role. <sigh> As you can tell, I'm probably incapable of sustaining a NPOV on this topic, so I'm recusing myself from further involvement, but I will monitor the discussion. I'm sure I owe somebody an apology.

My recurring Rapture Nightmare: I would "wake up" finding myself still in my bed, but it was flying straight up into the night sky at about Mach 3)

Riskplaya 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think I even know any Dispensationalist types who watch this page, (I'm assuming that's where your Rapture Nightmare thing is coming from) so you might very well need to apologize to nobody :/. Homestarmy 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming suggestion and slandering complaint

This is slandering to the Christian religion. I have no complaints about the content other than this (although I didn't review it in detail). It is good and useful to have a list of false prophets & their prophecies (to highlight the pervasiveness of false prophesies), but this cannot imply that Christians dream up false prophecies. If a similar article existed per religious group, that could have been acceptable - referred to in the 'see also' section of each.

Note this article nominated for deletion that tries to balance unfulfilled prophecy / predictions with fulfilled prophesy. This was heavily opposed with no suggestion of a rewrite or corrections. This negative unbalanced view of prophesy on Wikipedia should not remain. I applied some modifications to the 'evidence of prophecy section' of the 'prophecy' article as well to ease up on this negative view. JLMarais 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like we haven't tried to rename the page before, but as the wording in the introduction states, its only about people who self-identify as Christians. Plus, none of the people listed in this page are part of Christianity the religion, only self-proclaimed adherants to it. (Or, of course, genuine adherants, some of these entries might be a bit specious...) "Religious groups" as I assume you propose is much, much too broad, this article would probably easily balloon past 300 Kb if it was anywhere near compleate, which it likely could never be due to the obscene number of false prophets which have prophecied for various religions. Homestarmy 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the proposed name. To attempt to open the door to cover all religions defeats the purpose. Christianity is not unique as a religion and there are far too many religions to attempt to cover all false prophets. What is important about this article is demonstrating there have been false prophets from the very beginning of Christianity and there are false prophets today within Christianity. Critics of Christianity have accused even the first apostles as being false because they were so urgently looking for Christ's imminent return and he obviously did not return when they thought he would.

Also, I think the introduction needs to be changed given the majority of individuals and churches covered are what is viewed as "mainstream". --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a change of name. The entire content is about the claims of Christians and Christian splinter groups, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I have been through this article and provided more structure in terms of headings. I hope that by doing this, I have dealt with some of the problems. I hope I have not caused offence in drawing a boundary between mainstream and other: if I have, no doubt some one else will correct it. The sections with whcih I am least happy are those now headed 'Late 20th cnetury' and '21st century'. There is a need to distinguish between serious predictions and mere rhetoric on the part of tele-evangelists, which are probably mere wishful thinking that does them no favour. Peterkingiron 10:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this article is cited or shows up as a search result, the title alone leaves an impression. Often the link may not be followed to investigate the details, but the impression that 'Christians make false predictions' remain. I would prefer a change to reflect church groups rather than the direct Christian association. JLMarais 02:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to be able to claim victimhood when challenged, to be able to identify mortal enemies, isn't it? It's the only way you can feel truly alive. That's what I observed in the megachurch where I heard a fair share of prophecies that have since been revised. Bridgman 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article was redirected to [[Famous predictions]] as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc^g 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection

I have resurrected the article, minus the specific Christian lead paragraph, at Unfulfilled religious prophecies. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JR, if that's what you want to do, then clean it up as a matter of priority. For one thing, make sure that every single prophecy here is distinctly religious. Not political, not cultural, but religious. Also, I think it would be better if the whole thing as done as a timeline. StAnselm 05:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives