Talk:Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions

Anti-Christian Bigotry

Lets face it , the only reason for this article is Anti-Christian Bigotry. All of the articles are so twisted that a third grader can find the flaws. For example, no where does Chuck Smith make a prediction of a time or date but the Christian haters at Wikipedia twist what he says to try & make him look like a kook. The same can be said of the Martin Luther part. Boy I guess you Christaphobes have nothing better to do then vomit up your anti-Christian hate. No wonder no one trusts Wikipedia anymore. It is just a mouthpiece for the loony liberal God-hating left.--75.36.66.166 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely , the false prophet page has been limited to just Christians, Jews and Muslims. "Editors" just blanket delete and remove NPOV without comment or any proper procedure. How is this bigotry allowed ??65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMCC333

I am a Christian believe this is a great article. I remind you that by definition false prophets are not Christian and our Lord told us to watch out for them. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely. This article is for Christians sorting out true prophecy from false prophecy. Teachings, leadership and theologies aside. Those who are predicting the future must stand on steady ground. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You can buy the book Chuck Smith wrote predicting the end may occur in 1981 here [1] Get the facts before you accuse other of bigotry! Freikorp (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alert the presses, apparently pointing out that someone (or several someones) got something wrong is bigotry. You may not like it, but Wikipedia doesn't have an ant-Christian bias — reality does. Reality has an anti-religious bias, thus anything that accurately reports reality will also have an anti-religious bias. The reality of the matter is that these predictions were made, and these predictions were wrong. If you think acknowledging that is "hate", I don't want to see how you respond to actual hate. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 11:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

My critique

While you're updating, also consider substituting the primary references. For example under Baptist Church -- it makes no sense to claim that the Bible makes several predictions that the antichrist will seek to murder multitudes of saints -- and then give a secondary reference that is inaccessible. Give 'a selection' of juiciest Bible references. And remember that there are interlinear transliterations with less coloring from perception of meaning than the multitude of translations.

--Xgenei (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I am currently attempting to fix this article. It is now under a less POV name, and I am removing any uncited claims. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The End Times page still lists the link as "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" Do all of those need to be changed manually, too? Psi overtake 10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone redirected "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" to this page. It is fixed, in other words. Some editor(s) had redirected many articles to Failed predictions, that originally went to "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians", due to the sentiment that it wasn't fair to single out a religious group for making false predictions, small parts of it may have been POV (biased), or there was also some need of cleanup and proper sources . (Although there were MANY sources sited most of which are the predictors own literature.) This article has the same basic content but has been cleaned up. Clicking on "what links here" in the left colum on the Failed predictions article reveals that all those links have been removed or fixed.Psysoph 10:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Place to move stuff out of the article

===From Jehovah's Witness section===u I moved this from the article to here. It is from the Jehovah's Witness section. The formatting is confusing. What is "kj"? An exact quote would be better for the last phrase. The author didn't seem careful enough to preview their work or use basic formating so I consider it dubious.

“ Also from The Nations shall know that I am Jehovah - How?

kj chap. 12 p. 216 "Until He Comes Who Has the Legal Right" 9 Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom

”

Psysoph 10:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume it refers to the King James Version of the Bible. Subsolar (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why only christians, and christian derived groups

Why are all these groups Christian, or Christian derived. In order for the article to not be biased and meet NPOV, it needs to list prophecies by muslims, buddhists, hindus, jews, and other groups. Saksjn (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). . . dave souza, talk 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that, I've been editing awhile. Personally I don't like this article and don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Therefore, at the present I do not wish to contribute to it. In the future I may change my mind, but for now, I don't wish to contribute to a non-encyclopedic article. Saksjn (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the combination of text and tables is bad. Maybe it should instead be "List of xxx", ordered chronologically, with the text about particular religions distributed elsewhere. Subsolar (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved to Unfulfilled Christian prophecies, in order to make place for other religion's unfulfilled prophecies. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Prophecies

I prophesize that this wikipedia page will only continue to grow exponentially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklynxman (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the above statement doesn't make it in the article. =) Saksjn (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Second coming

I've found myself in an edit war with another user in the Christianity section - it currently reads "prophecy regarding the return of Jesus Christ has been generally accepted but has not been fulfilled." This seems biased to me - it was not originally a prophecy that had a specific time-frame attached to it, so it is better to say "has not yet been fulfilled" (but without the emphasis, of course). Or deleted entirely - shouldn't this article be about prophecies that have passed their "used-by" date? StAnselm (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just another comment - the lead paragraph specifically excludes "Bible prophecy", so the second coming paragraph really needs to go. StAnselm (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints

Surely the claim that Joseph Smith was told he would see the Son of God if he lived to be 85 was not an unfulfilled prophecy, given that he didn't live to be 85? I'm going to remove it. As for the rest, the section itself says that 'this was never spelled out in his own revelation'.Tameamseo (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it doubly-unfulfilled. — Omegatron 00:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's clearly a conditional prophecy, and therefore does not belong. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. — Omegatron 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, please don't revert it back until it has been resolved here. StAnselm (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert war. The content stays in the article until someone gives a good reason why it shouldn't be there. — Omegatron 14:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And Tameamseo has, but you haven't really produced an argument in favour of keeping it. StAnselm (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no argument for removing it. The sections being removed discuss religious prophecies that were not fulfilled. If there's something in the article that prevents conditional prophecies from being included, that part of the article should be changed. — Omegatron 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section could use a slight retooling but it is referenced three times and should stay.--Adamfinmo (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Forgive me guys, this is a simple argument if the section uses comprehensive (i.e. fair) analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong because at this point I am just following the trail: He was saying that the son of God would arrive on such and such a date -- or that he would die first. This cannot be said to be a disproven prophecy in any sense of the meaning (given in this article very well I think) for three reasons: 1) it wasn't a prophecy. It is easy for people to impose equivalence on different writings -- I'm just saying -- the same prophets may have the need to share optimism at times. This need, like AARON and his golden calf (archetypally) by example of many claims in the Bible's letters of encouragement by the apostles, does not equal prophecy. 2) it has a condition that allows opting out, and this is often a case of prophecy in history. I don't see any distinction between "turn and repent or else" and this. 3) I think there is, within the context of LDS belief systems, a secondary possibility that he met him not on this world. Since this is an 'expressionist' view of reality (and I can argue that one very well indeed) -- these arguments are not far from typical even of the established primary prophecies. At the very least it should be noted as controversial and left at that. --Xgenei (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Any reason the Latter Day Saints section has been completely removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yovinedelcielo (talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Apostolic Church

There is no indication that Edward Irving was the founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church, or that he was the forerunner of the charismatic or pentecostal movement. According to Flegg, Irving was a forerunner of the Catholic Apostolic Movement, and not its founder. This is also stated in the Wikipedia article on the Catholic Apostolic Church . Miller stated that the predictions by by Irving on the return of Jesus Christ should not be seen as a litteral return, but as a spiritual return. Irving's views was not incorporated into the Catholic Apostolic Church, and there was no indication that Irving's views became the views of the Catholic Apostolic Church. According to Flegg, the Catholic Apostolic views was devoleped after 14 June 1935, in the period called, "the seperation of the Apostles".

• G.C. Flegg: Gathered Under Apostles; A Study of the Catholic Apostolic Church; Oxford, 1992. - ISBN 0-19-826335-X
• Edward Miller: The History and Doctrines of Irvingism or of the so-called Catholic Apostolic Church in two vols. - Vol. I & II; (C. Kegan Paul & Co.) London, 1878; reprinted by Elibron in 2004. - ISBN 1-4021-1652-7 (paperback - Vol. I) or ISBN 1-4021-1651-9 (hardcover - Vol. I) & ISBN 1-4021-1654-3 (paperback Vol. II) or ISBN 1-4021-1653-5 (hardcover Vol. II).

SaneSerenity (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Flegg, as stated above, and Miller, Edward Irving was not the founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church, and this specefic idea of Irving was never proposed or believed by the Catholic Apostolic Church. Therefore I will remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaneSerenity (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It does appear, though, that Irving was making an apocalyptic prediction, and that he was influential in the beginnings of the Catholic Apostolic Church. I hate to see the content disappear entirely; it seems rather that you have done the appropriate research to revise this section to make it more accurate. Agathman (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Montanus

Montanus might not have predicted the return of Christ, but might have refered to the Holy Ghost. Contributers must make sure of this. As the wikipedia page on Montanism makes reference on the Holy Ghost. I will look up on it and make sure of it.

SaneSerenity (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Umm...

Why are predictions set to occur at 2009 or beyond considered "failed", when there's still time for the prophecy to be fulfilled? Granted, it's still very unlikely (and we know for a fact the Hillary Clinton prediction won't happen), but possible. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that they are not (as yet) 'failed' attempts at prophecy. The ones in question were added by a single editor recently and I've removed them. Tameamseo (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to "predictions"

I have moved this article to "predictions". Some of them are prophecies, but the vast majority are predictions. For example, in the mislabeled Unfulfilled_religious_predictions#Baptist_Church (there is no Baptist Church - there are countless many denominations called "Baptist", but no single "Baptist Church" or even a most predominant "Baptist Church") section, this is one guy's interpretation and he made a "prediction" based on it. A "prophecy" is providing information that cannot be known by ordinary means. In other words, it is (or, in this context, falsely purports to be) revelation from God. But if the "prediction" is merely based on someone reading the Bible and drawing their own conclusion from it, as is the case with the Baptist section or with Chuck Smith's prediction of a 1981 return of Christ, that's a prediction, not a prophecy. --B (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Religious predictions"?

This article is solely about Christianity, not religion in general. And even then, the predictions are mostly about the Messiah. Could we change the title? 71.178.189.123 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. When I clicked on the wikilink leading to this article, I was expecting fun facts about African or Asian predictions, not just boring ol' Christian mythology. 151.68.4.219 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't dividing the article into "mainstream" and "other" churches kind of marginalizing to those in the "other" section? If "mainstream" is defined strictly by numbers, I believe there are more Jehovah's Witnesses than Mennonites. It just seems inherently biased to me. I've never edited much, but maybe I'll figure out how to change it myself.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.22.10 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the "mainstream" and "other" issue, and I don't see why there's a division. Are there any objections to just having one long list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.10.35 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggest change of title to...

I suggest a change of title to "List of unfulfiled predictions by christian churches" Faro0485 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

They are predictions by individuals who did not necessarily have the official support of the churches in question. They should not be called "predictions by Christian churches" as this would imply otherwise.Tameamseo (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit history begins with the page name change from, "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians". It was changed because that name had to be deleted. StAnselm opens the arguments with, "Would we allow a page on "unfulfilled historical predictions by women"? "unfulfilled historical predictions by black people"? No, this categorisation demonstrates a bias against Christianity. StAnselm 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)" (Egalitarian = unbiased, mkay?) So they redirect to "Famous predictions", then EliminatorJR resurrects it with a new name, and StAnselm decides that discrimination against religious people is a tolerable compromise, "make sure that every single prophecy here is distinctly religious. Not political, not cultural, but religious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenos (talk • contribs)

Criteria for inclusion?

I do not see what criteria we are using to determine whether a prediction counts as a religious prediction suitable for inclusion here. First, this page seems skewed towards Christian prophecies. Surely other religions have a tradition of similar predictions? Second, I can see no notability criteria. To take one example, why have these three prophecies of Hinn's been selected among the many false predictions he's made? (He predicted, for instance, that God would make a last visit to America during Bush's presidency. Presumably, that did not occur.) Are the selected prophecies more notable?

What counts as a religious prediction, for that matter?

This list seems hopeless to me. It is impossible to keep an accurate list of failed predictions. Even if we had a clear guideline regarding which failed predictions are notable (that they were discussed in secondary literature either at the time of the prediction or after its evident failure, or that a large number of persons somehow took note of the prediction), it strikes me as implausible that a comprehensive list could be made. We see in this article evidence of the problem. The list is skewed towards one religion (with a single entry prior to the 18th century!) and to modern televangelists.

Frankly, it seems to me that this article is a good candidate for deletion, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Let's start with those missing criteria. Which failed predictions count as unfulfilled religious predictions that should be included in this page? Phiwum (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One more question: as far as I can tell, there is no page listing successful prophecies. Now, I'm not arguing that there should be such a page, but this page surely gives the appearance that Wikipedia values pointing out the failures of religious leaders (and televangelists) rather than neutrally presenting information about religion. Am I missing some reason that a list of failed predictions is a reasonable addition to an encyclopedia, while a list of successful predictions is not? Much thanks.Phiwum (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed one last concern: why have an article on failed religious predictions and not one on, say, failed psychic predictions? Again, the presence of this page seems arbitrary at best and more plausibly a violation of NPOV. I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion, because I don't see any way to fix it and avoid these criticisms. Please visit the AFD and contribute to the discussion! Phiwum (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My soon-to-be successful non-religious prediction Given the current response at the AfD, I predict that the article will not be deleted, on the grounds that it could be turned into a good article. I also predict that, one year from now, there will be no significant changes which address any of the criticisms I've raised. Yes, perhaps, if we change the article topic to make it narrow and clear, it could be a good article. But no one will do that. Instead, we will continue with an incomplete and arbitrary list of predictions, mingling historic figures and an occasional televangelist for no particular reason whatsoever. Phiwum (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be wise for you to read WP:POINT. That page states "This page in a nutshell: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked." And it talks about what you are specifically trying to do:

"If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly silly topic just to get it listed on AfD and make others see your point."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I have no plans to make Wikipedia worse just to prove that this article is inappropriate. I never thought I should create "Successful religious predictions" or "Unsuccessful psychic predictions" or "False political claims throughout history". Nor did I consider editing this page to show the results of an ill-defined list (heck, they're already apparent: Benny Hinn has had three times the false predictions than the entire Christian church over a millenium and a half).

I'm frustrated by the AfD, but I'm not going to fly off the handle. I've decided to remove the AfD and this page from my watchlist and maybe come back a year later and see if I am pleasantly surprised. Is the list well-defined? Is it inclusive? Are the items listed of reasonable importance and reasonably complete? (Note: I won't do this work because I'm not a religious historian and I don't want to put in the legwork to try and improve an article I suspect will always be hopeless.)

Anyway, it's evident that my opinion is not consensus. Phiwum (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I tried to make some edits and all my references were deleted. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Your edits were reverted for good reason and independently of my opinion that the article should be deleted. There was no emotion involved in the decision to revert. I think it is eminently plausible, for instance, that most religious predictions have been unfulfilled, but you must give a clear citation for this claim. Also, your claim that predictions peaked in 1999 needs a source, and you did not provide a reliable source (or any source!) that supports this statement. Similarly, a Google search on "Obama is the ANTICHRIST" is not a reliable source and furthermore does not count as proof that many religious predictions are politically motivated.

In short, your edits were reverted for reasons that were independent of this AFD and should be discussed on Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions rather than here. Phiwum (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CALM DOWN ALREADY: We will work together to find solid sources to make sure that the article is NPOV. Time to go to the Library. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, you're remarkably bad at inferring the emotional state of an author. I'm perfectly calm. Phiwum (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy you are taking this with good humour. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion once again

Some editors are convinced that these issues will be settled by simple discussion, but no one is interested in discussing them. So, let me start the ball rolling. I will try to give some criteria for inclusion here and then criticize my own response to show why these criteria are inadequate.

• Any prediction included must clearly be shown to have failed. Clearly open-ended predictions (like "Jesus will return soon") are open to interpretation and thus should not be taken to have failed. I take it that "unfulfilled" means something stronger than "not fulfilled so far".
• Any prediction included must be religious in nature, that is, must be claimed to be divinely inspired or something similar.
• Any prediction included must be notable. That is, it must be discussed in reliable sources and the claim that it is unfulfilled must also be referenced to a reliable source. Most web pages run by small organizations and most blogs do not count as a WP:RS (I think).
• The content of any unfulfilled prediction must be suitably significant. Claims like "Jim Bakker will be acquitted" are too trivial and commonplace and we have no possibility of a complete list of such claims. Claims that disasters are forthcoming (by a certain date!) or that a messiah will return (by a certain date!) count in this regard.
• The originator of any unfulfilled prediction must be a suitable religious figure, as verified by WP:RS. Popular evangelists are suitable in this respect, but a politician (say) who claims that God told him so is presumably not suitable.
• Many predictions are the result of an attempt to interpret Biblical prophecy. I assume that since this page is not about Biblical (or other holy text) prophecy, these predictions should not be included.

Now, this is a stab at some criteria. In my own opinion, they are too vague and too broad to satisfy the need for criteria. They still justify the equal treatment of important historical figures alongside the trivial televangelists' prophecies. The notability requirements are arbitrary: there are many, many unfulfilled religious predictions made every year and only a very small handful are critically discussed. It's a matter of accident (and not inherent notability) that some predictions are discussed in skeptical works and others are not. Finally, even with these criteria, it appears to be hopeless that this list will ever be complete. Even if we restrict ourselves to predictions discussed (and refuted) in the literature, our list will consist of a small number of candidates, skewed by the knowledge of the editors interested enough to contribute to the page. Issues that no criteria can address:

• They do not address the fact that this page neglects non-Christian prophecies, despite its explicit aim. This must be fixed by knowledgeable editors adding new predictions.
• They do not fix the fact that this page is biased towards modern but trivial predictions. It is a damned shame that only one unfulfilled prediction is listed for a millenium and a half (and none prior to that). Again, this can only be fixed by the attention of knowledgeable editors (who have thus far resisted invitations to fix this page).
• Criteria do not give a clear explanation for why it is reasonable to list failed religious predictions, but not successful religious predictions or failed predictions of some other sort. No one has tried to answer this question.

Again, I think that these criteria do not satisfy my criticism, but as no one else seems interested in starting this discussion, here is my stab at it. Note that I still believe that the only sensible option is to delete this page as inherently vague, incomplete and arbitrary, but have decided to contribute at least some thought into making it better nonetheless. Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoted reply to Phiwum's post dated 17:28, 25 November 2009

"The originator of any unfulfilled prediction must be a suitable religious figure, as verified by WP:RS. Popular evangelists are suitable in this respect, but a politician (say) who claims that God told him so is presumably not suitable." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not politicians? If it is a religious prediction that is notable according to Wikipedia:Note#General_notability_guideline, it should be included. Granted if this becomes an exhaustive list, parts of the sections will have to be put into their respective articles or this article will be too long. The notability guideline covers your two preceding points as well. Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Many predictions are the result of an attempt to interpret Biblical prophecy. I assume that since this page is not about Biblical (or other holy text) prophecy, these predictions should not be included." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Biblical prophecy article deals with interpreting the Bible, not historical interpretations of religious leaders. Specific failed predictions based (in part) on sacred texts would be more appropriate in this article. Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"They still justify the equal treatment of important historical figures alongside the trivial televangelists' prophecies." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Many televangelist claims would be noteworthy according to wp:gng. They can be enormously influential. Pat Robertson founded his own TV broadcasting network, for God sake. In one sense, the fact that they are still alive and involved in these frauds or mass delusions, makes them more notable than deceased leaders. Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's a matter of accident (and not inherent notability) that some predictions are discussed in skeptical works and others are not." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could invite you to Lumeniki where we have a more uumm... flexible criteria of notability... however there is little evidence anyone besides me, reads Lumeniki. :-) Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Finally, even with these criteria, it appears to be hopeless that this list will ever be complete." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if it were complete because there would be more information. Deleting the information that is there gets us further from, not closer to, that objective. Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"They do not address the fact that this page neglects non-Christian prophecies, despite its explicit aim. This must be fixed by knowledgeable editors adding new predictions." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem pretty knowledgeable. :-) I don't understand how removing information is a solution to there being not enough information. I suppose it is a question of fairness? Like we shouldn't make a category for American gangs, until we have categories for gangs in every other country? This is a catch 22. If we don't start somewhere we won't have any articles about anything "controversial". Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Criteria do not give a clear explanation for why it is reasonable to list failed religious predictions, but not successful religious predictions or failed predictions of some other sort. No one has tried to answer this question." Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of a failed prediction is easier to demonstrate, than a "successful" one. Would "successful" mean that the prediction was based on supernatural revelation, or simply that the predicted event happened? It would be much easier to quantify the latter, but then I think it should be reworded. Something like, "Events predicted using supernatural means, that occurred". If any of these are non-trivial predictions (according to wp:gng) and verified to have occurred (according to wp:v) I don't see a problem with an article about them. Lumenos (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Material on Luther

My reading of the sources was that Luther believed the end was near, but not that this was a prophesy or "prediction" within the context of this article. I am willing to keep an open mind if somebody wants to take up this issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't just delete material on Luther, you deleted the entire section on the Lutheran church. Did you read it? Why did you also delete the sourced information on Nachenmoser, for example? Lumenos (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Luther may not call himself a "prophet" but a prediction is simply saying that something will happen. Luther was apparently following the "prophets" (or holy men) of the Bible, but this article is about any predictions' based on religious grounds. It doesn't require they be labeled (original) "prophecies". Lumenos (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange sentence

The last sentence of the lead is "Religious predictions, consist of two relatives, the nature of prediction, and the accomplishment." What is that supposed to mean? It's poorly written in any case - there shouldn't be a comma after the word "predictions" - and it seems to be using nonstandard meanings of the words "relatives," "prediction," and possibly "accomplishment." It looks like it may have been translated from some other language (in particular, because there's no "the" before "prediction"). I'd be tempted to delete it... except it has no less than three citations, none of which are online for me to check. 128.100.3.42 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried deleting it. I think Ret Prof put it back. It has a source, which means it is "verifiable" (or wp:syn?), although it may take a hundred years for anyone else to look it up. Perhaps the author's point is that a prediction may be misinterpreted? Lumenos (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the intro has a lot of sentences that are either unnecessarily obvious or confusing. I'll try reducing it again. Lumenos (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. However the lead needs work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we have already have Jesus, to the right, warning us of the false prophets. Regarding this Second Coming fiasco, this appears to me like the pot calling the kettle black. :-) Lumenos (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a little. This is what we have presently:

---

This article does not include predictions by authors of "sacred" religious texts. It includes other notable, original predictions, as well as predictions based on (correct or incorrect) interpretations of "sacred" texts. Predictions written in major "sacred" texts, are covered in articles such as Bible prophecy, or Qur'an and miracles. Another list that is specific to the Second Coming of Christ, can be found in Second Coming#Predictions based on the New Testament.

This article lists predictions of notable religious figures, that failed to come about in the specified time frame. They are listed according to the religious groups they influenced.

---

What else does it need to say? Lumenos (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

3rd secret of Fatima

I've replaced my paras on the fatima prophecies. It's not enough to remove them without suggesting improvements first; they are fully cited.Red Hurley (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a word of advice, if your changes are reverted on Wikipedia, you need to discuss before restoring them. Please take a look at WP:BRD. I'm afraid it is simply untrue to say that they are "fully cited": the first paragraph is completely unreferenced, and the second paragraph is only partly cited.

For a prediction this to meet the criteria set out at the beginning of the article it would have to include a prediction and a specified time now past by which the events were supposed to occur (otherwise the prediction hasn't actually failed as of yet). It's not clear from your additions that any of the three secrets meet these criteria. Please see the first sentence of the article.

If we can verifiably determine that predictions were made, the events haven't happened and their specified "deadlines" have passed, then I would welcome the additions as they would then meet the criteria. Can we do that? For instance, were the predicted killings supposed to have happened by a date that's now past?

Your changes also include one or two uncited subjective elements, with at least one example of what looks like blatant POV when you speak of "conveniently re-interpreting the prophecies". That needs fixing is therefore also needed if we're to include them. Tameamseo (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I will add more cites, but Fatima is well known of if you know anything about Roman Catholicism, which subsection it is in. The linked pages are there for all to check up on - I hadn't heard of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima. I recall my maiden aunts speculating endlessly in the 1960s and 1970s about the 3rd secret - it was said to foretell the end of the world anytime soon - what mugs we all were!

The "predictions" were endlessly described as such, but the third one was kept secret and then revealed in 2000 as rather less than it had been billed as. It turned out that the Pope and heirarchy hadn't all been killed. The release of the "secret" in June 2000 coincided nearly with the end of its time-frame, the 20th century, i.e. 1st January 2001, and the last 6 months didn't bear out the secret, did it? And so "conveniently re-interpreting the prophecies" sums that up as concisely as possible. It was a re-interpretion and it was convenient; but perhaps "necessary" would be a better word than convenient?

And I propose finally adding Elizabeth Barton; there are dozens more but space is limited.Red Hurley (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead as long as you include the citationss to show that the three meet the article's criteria as I said, and avoid unsourced subjectivity. "Conveniently re-interpreting" just sounds too much as if the writer is taking a certain position on the subject. I'm not sure even "necessary" is great there when uncited - what's really needed I suppose (as in many things on Wikipedia) is a good source. And yes, there was certainly a lot of over-excited speculation at one stage on what revelations the 3rd secret might bring! Re Elizabeth Barton, I agree the prediction of Henry's death etc could be a good addition. Tameamseo (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nit-Picking

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Saint Malachy predicted about Ireland that: "At the end of seven centuries she would be delivered from her oppressors (or oppressions), who in their turn would be subjected to dreadful chastisements, and Catholic Ireland would be instrumental in bringing back the British nation to that Divine Faith which Protestant England had, during three hundred years, so rudely endeavoured to wrest from her."[20] St. Malachy died in 1148, just 23 years before the Norman invasion of Ireland, which conquered a large part of the island, was effected in 1171. Despite his apparent success in predicting a "Protestant England", Ireland was still being run from London in 1872: an independent Irish state was not reestablished until several decades after that date.

A few decades off after seven centuries? If your aim is to show prophecies which failed, I don't think this belongs here. While it proves nothing, it is impressive and it looks like the author is clutching at straws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.37.228 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(correct or incorrect)

I support the removal of this parenthetical comment. Using the word "interpretation" allows the user to appreciate the fact that opinions over validity may vary. As a result, the parenthetical comment is redundant and hinders unnecessarily the reading. Rklawton (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

awesome

this is an awesome Wikipedia page, I will now go in search of other awesome Wikipedia pages like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.226.193 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Unfulfilled"?

are there honestly any religious predictions that HAVE been fulfilled? let's get realistic here.

I'm not aware of any reliable source indicating any verifiable fulfilment of a religious prediction. Aside from subjective religious opinions, the only distinction between entries in this article and other religious predictions is that the other predictions haven't failed yet.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize how ridiculous this claim is? No religious predictions have ever come true? Think of the odds! Alleged psychics toss out dozens of predictions each year, ensuring that at least a small handful will come true and they can repeatedly trumpet their successes. If religious predictions, on the other hand, never come true, why, there must be a reason for it. Simply claiming that God told you something would happen makes it not happen? If that's not supernatural, then I don't know what is. Phiwum (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there might occasionally be some 'prediction' that is either so vague or so mundane that something resembling it might happen. However, I am not aware of any event that is widely reported (that is, reported by anyone other than those who made the prediction in the first place or their followers) as any actual verifiable fulfilment of any specific religious prediction. Feel free to present sources to the contrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

See Our Lady of Fátima for an example of well publicized prophesies documented and fulfilled (subject to interpretation no doubt). Rklawton (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

'Fátima's' first 'secret' is not reconcilable with anything at all.

The second 'secret' is pretty open to interpretation, and wasn't 'released' by the Church until 1941. The second 'secret' says the "consecration of Russia" would be "to prevent" "a worse one [a war worse than World War I]". The reinterpretation of the significance of 'consecrating Russia', which ignores the actual original wording completely, is evidence enough that it was not fulfilled.

Though the third 'secret' doesn't say anything specific at all anyway, Joseph Ratzinger stated that the third 'secret' was not "a film of an irrevocably fixed future" but rather, that "the vision speaks of dangers and how we might be saved from them."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Still an incomplete, haphazard mess, I see.

A quick glance gives the impression that there were no unfulfilled religious predictions between the third and nineteenth centuries. Either prophets were silent during the entire period, or were surprisingly accurate. Also, it seems that only Christians have ever made unfulfilled religious predictions, aside from the Ghost Dance predictions of Jack Wilson.

It's been over a year and a half since I first pointed out the dreadful state of this article. I happily admit that I've not raised a finger to help it along, because I think it's unencyclopedic dreck to begin with. It's simply not our jobs as WP editors to search for religious predictions in a systematic manner and categorize them as either failed or fulfilled. The obvious result will be the ridiculous mess we see hearhere, which gives the impression that Benny Hinn's televised predictions are equally noteworthy as the Great Disappointment (more so, since he is the most prolific failed prophet of all time, according to this article).

Well. Good luck with this. I'm sure in another couple of years, it'll be in fine shape. (Pardon my hostility, but this article really does have no good argument for its existence in mine ever so humble opinion and I am rather frustrated to see its continued sorry state.) Phiwum (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently about two-thirds of the way through overhauling the article List of predicted dates of the end of the world or similar events. I've made if fairly comprehensive up until the 1990s. I am in the process of expanding the 90s and 2000s, during which there were more predictions of the END than in the 5000 years preceding the 90s. The overwhelming majority of the predictions are religious in nature. Rather than having a list of a meagre 16 unfulfilled predictions, can I propose just having a "see main article" link to this other article. My other suggestion would be mass cutting and pasting the religious predictions but I don't really see the point in having two lists that are fairly identical. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If no-one replies in a day or two I will be bold and make the change and simply like to the other page. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Elenin

Is it too early to list the destruction of Earth by C/2010 X1 (supposedly a.k.a. Wormwood by the nutters) as a failed prediction? See http://www.space.com/13045-comet-elenin-skywatching-curiosity-nasa.html --Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That link is giving me a 404 Error. Providing there is a reliable reference and it is a religious prediction, I don't think early-ness should be an issue. Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Wiki automatically included the hyphens from the signature as part of the link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Nibiru collision.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

False Prophet Picture

Why is the 'false prophet' picture of jesus's mount sermon picture here? It seems to imply that the people listed here are false prophets, which would be a christian interpretation, but because of Wikiepedia's NPOV rules, such interpretations shouldn't be displayed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.169.236 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a very similar page elsewhere

to wit:

List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

which offers a different approach but covers the same material. Should we put the two together in some way? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We also have Predictions and claims for the Second Coming - Wikipedia which contains the same info and also is focused entirely on Christian accounts which fits more with this page after it was moved to be about only unfulfilled Christian religious predictions.

As everyone seems to be upset at this page I think we should merge this article into the Second Coming page. No need to have two different pages effectively providing the same information. Second Coming page has a better layout too and people don't have to get upset that their church sect is being misrepresented because it associates claim with claimant instead of just the church. 62.101.195.234 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Another grousing session

I see, during my semi-annual visit to the page, that no significant improvements have occurred. Oh, there's no longer a bewildering mix of tables and paragraph explanations, but only because all of the content of the tables has been removed. So, now, there is not a single example of an unfulfilled religious prediction which is not Christian. Them crazy Christians and their unfulfilled religious predictions!

Seriously, this is a hopeless project. I really wish that WP would drop it. There are no evident criteria for inclusion here, and it is obvious that the actual examples listed are biased (not necessarily intentionally, but rather due to editors' cultural backgrounds) in a regrettable way. I just don't get why this page exists. Phiwum (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Unfulfilled religious predictions → Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions – After several years, this page still has anyno examples of non-Christian unfulfilled religious predictions. It briefly had one example, after I added a reference to the Ghost Dance, but that was (accidentally) deleted some time ago. In any case, no other editors contributed any non-Christian examples. If I had my druthers, the page would be deleted as an example of a hopeless list that can never be complete or non-arbitrary, but previous AFDs have failed. In the absence of any clear criteria for inclusion of this list, what has emerged has been exclusively a list of Christian predictions. This seems unlikely to change, so we might as well change the article title to reflect its contents. Phiwum (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unless predictions from non-Christian sources are added. If it makes you feel any better, I'd vote to delete if another (hopeless) AfD nomination were put forward. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oops. Please help.

I was just reviewing the AfD listed at the top of the page. It says that the article was nominated in July 2011, but the linked discussion is 2009. I think that I nominated the article twice, so that the 2011 date refers to the later nomination, but links to the earlier. Could someone better acquainted with wiki-fu please fix this for me?

Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Nikthestoned 15:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversions of SteedLaw's edits

SteedLaw changed: "The prophecies included predictions of the Civil War, the fall of the U. S. government, the coming of Jesus, and several less significant predictions." to

"The prophecies included predictions of the Civil War, the LDS becomming a mighty people after suffering much hardships in the Rocky Mountains, and several less significant predictions. Church apologists cite many prophecies that came true (including an uncanny and accurate prediction of the location of the first shots of the Civil War some 30 years prior)"

Not only does it look pov (eg the removal of "the fall of the US Government, the coming of Jesus" which seem pretty significant to me, and the "uncanny & accurate" is clear pov), the source for the civil war comment actually says "Joseph was merely up on current events; he did not have to be a prophet to say this. Although they were not as explicit as Section 87, it is interesting to note that earlier Joseph had made similar predictions in 1831 (see D&C 38:29 and 45:63)." Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic predictions

The predictions cited in the Roman Catholic section are written as though they have been discredited or fulfilled. The one with Saint Malachy is written as if it were fulfilled. He may have been a few decades off, but that seems trivial in a scope of 700 years. Martin Luther's accusations may have been made by people in that time period, but it's written as though the general population accused him of this, and that the notable Erasmus discredited this. The Bishop Charles Walmesley's prediction also seems to have been justified in this article. If we are going to continue to include this section, should we include more notable Catholic theologians that made predictions? And if there weren't any, should we continue to include this section? Timotheus1 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Unfulfilled religious prophecies" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Unfulfilled religious prophecies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 1#Unfulfilled religious prophecies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Reorganize chronologically

I suggest reorganizing this article chronologically. As a general rule, failed predictions tend to lead to the marginalization of their predictors within their group. Thus many of these claims and their claimants are fringe figures within their traditions. (Obviously, others become fringe within their previous religious affiliations but become founders of new ones.) Thus, it seems like organizing this article into sections by religious tradition is potentially misleading about both the claimant and the religious tradition that they are identified with. Daask (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Because a particular group could make multiple predictions for different periods, it does not seem suitable to sort chronologically at this article. I have fixed the sorting by name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: The situation is much improved and I am satisfied with the current article state. Thank you! Daask (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)