Talk:False prophet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Really stupid[edit]

I don't know who wrote this but it's really stupid. "The false prophet, used in St. John's Book of Revelation, is a personification of Satan, or the devil, from whom sulphur and fire will pour from his mouth. One can assume that the false prophet, taken literally, was the root of evil in a person's heart, telling them corruption and Satanic worship was the right path in life."

You can't take this literally! It's impossible to have sulphur and fire coming out of your mouth literally! And even if it were possible, it isn't logical to assume that this "literal" prophet is a "root of evil". Is the "root" literal as well? It would kill the person. A "literal" root in your heart (unless it was very small) would cause a heart attack, and/or blood poisoning. This article should be deleted!--ChadThomson 07:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The whole article should be deleted because you dispute one statement in it??? Idiotic. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-10 15:22
I don't think you looked at the older version of the article which was, in fact, very stupid. Check the history. --ChadThomson 07:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
This is probably very old news, but I think you're nitpicking in general. I don't think the person in question was describing a literal "root" nor do I think the issue is whether or not someone breathing fire and brimstone is possible or not. However, I do agree the statement is disagreeable for the simple fact that it is based on a lot of assumptions and seems to be the writer's interpretation of the Bible instead of letting the text speak for itself. Drumpler 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand the term "root." "Root" in this context means origin or cause. Another note: the 'fire and brimstone' supposedly spewing from the character's mouth is not literal in meaning, just like most of the Bible. It is a metaphor, and Christians are supposed to understand that these 'false prophets' (anyone proselytizing in a religion other than Christianity) are spreading harmful falsehoods to the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Muhammed?[edit]

Sammydirectproduct 23:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC): Is there a reason for the Muhammed reference at the end of the article? There seems to be an oblique implication to mentioning that Muhammed is considered a prophet of God in Islam in an entry for False prophet. If no one minds I am going to delete this.

Robert A West 22:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC): Someone added the reference back to the completely-rewritten article in a way that makes more sense. I did some copyediting, since the He-was-a-good-man-who-never-claimed-to-be-what-his-followers-make-him school is out there, probably in no small part as a "Can't we all get along" gesture.

HumanJHawkins 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC): It seems that this article should either be ammended to include a long list of people accused of being false prophets, or the reference to Mohammed should be removed. Any such list would have to include Jesus Christ as he was certainly accused of being a false prophet during his time. However, this might be interpreted as a negative comment on Christ and put the site at greater risk for vandalism.

I am agreed here. If this obviously wants to stay here, we need statements about how Christ was viewed as a false prophet as well as Moses. I don't think its relevant to this discussion. If you want to do that, put it up as a counter argument on the Jesus Christ article, the Moses article or in this case, the Mohammed article. It doesn't belong here. Drumpler 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with user HumanJHawkins. Much like in the debate in Florida education over whether to force teachers to say "the scientific theory of" in from of the term "evolution," so must we include all potential 'false prophets.'

Starting Over[edit]

The new stub is not great, but it is, I think, acceptable. Robert A West 08:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources[edit]

I was in a hurry to replace the original article with a decent stub, so I wasn't careful about citations. The article is now getting long and complex enough that we need to get careful about this. Especially in a topic as potentially hot as this one. Yes, this applies to me too. Robert A West 22:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples from Kings[edit]

I think that it is vital for the reader to understand that the court prophets, or at least many of them, were guilty of idolatry, and that idolatry was one of the principal charges against Ahab. Why was this deleted? Robert A West 18:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the defining thing of a "false prophet" is not that he worships a fake god but that he speaks with fake authority. The prophets mentioned in 1 Kings 22 speak not God's message but the message of the "lying spirit" – with disastrous outcome; on the contrary, the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 are not mentioned to prophesy anywhere. That's why I feel the present version to illustrate the point better. Idolatry isn't really the defining point, anyone can worship an idol. You don't have to be a prophet. Pilatus 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
A prophet of Baal falls under the condemnation of Deut 13:1-5 as false prophet. The fact that their prophesies are not recorded strikes me as irrelevant. Whether the court prophets in 1 Kings 22 are the same as (or similar to) the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, or were in league with them, is something that I have long taken for granted, but I agree it is not obvious. One can view the lying spirit, and its consequences, as punishment for prophesy without authority, and so the fulfilment of Deut. 18:20-22, or as the natural consequence of involvement with idolators, if not idolatry on the part of the prophet. Either way, I think your version obscures the issue. Robert A West 18:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Baal-worship is better subsumed under Deut 13:7-17, which is why Elijah has the Baal-prophets killed at the end of 1 Kings 18. On the other hand, the outcome of the "false prophecy" in 1 Kings 22 is death (for the king as substitute for the prophet). This is why I find the present version more suitable. Pilatus 22:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, but I will hunt up some commentaries and check this out more. Thanks. Robert A West 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Cheers. I recently moved house, and most of my books are still in storage, 500 km from here. Pilatus 11:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"God" vs "god" POV[edit]

It appears to be non-NPOV to have a distinction between "God" (who is, in this article, Islamic or Judeo-Christian) and "god" (who is not Islamic or Judeo-Christian) in the main article. I suggest that the word "god" be changed to "deity" except as part of a quote. Shawnc 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely.

Jewish Views of Mohammed[edit]

"The status of Jesus outside of Christianity and of Mohammed outside of Islam is an important and controversial matter. For the most part Judaism does not regard either as a genuine prophet, but while some rabbis condemn them as false prophets, others deny that they prophesied at all, and blame their followers for misrepresenting their careers."

I've seen this view with respect to Jesus, but not Mohammed. Are there any citations?

Both have also been considered largely or entirely fictitious, views I consider unfounded but which should still be represented. A.J.A. 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The white horsemen?[edit]

The sentence about the white horsemen needs a proper citation. In Wikipedia, to state "It is thought that ... " without giving the "thought by whom" is just another way of disguising a POV. DFH 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Citations[edit]

I have read, cover to cover, The Book of Mormon, The Qu'ran, and the King James Bible. Each had warnings similar to Matthew 7:15 - 23 cited here. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact text and location of the related parts of these books. Hopefully one of you will. It would be great if additional quotations from these (and other) texts could be added to this Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HumanJHawkins (talkcontribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Islam Section Biased[edit]

Is it me or does anyone else hint here a clear bias at the end regarding Islam? The article tends to make a particular argument as to why they believe Mohammed is a false prophet but doesn't directly deal with the issue of false prophecy and false prophets according to the teachings of Islam as it does the other two sections (which describe false prophecy and false prophets within the context of Christianity and Judaism). This seems to go against the tone of the rest of the article which reads more like a Christian tract than anything. Drumpler 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm proposing a rewrite for the first two sections. I'll probably do it. However, I will be fair in saying that I do not know enough about Islam to discuss how they view false prophets and false prophecy and so will then proceed to post up a neutrality dispute on that section instead. Drumpler 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfulfilled Christian Prophecy Link?[edit]

I'm not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think a counterlink should likewise be posted which shows arguments for fulfilled Christian prophecies in order to balance it out. In fact, does this even belong to this page at all? Maybe this is more appropriate for a page about Christian prophecies in general. Drumpler 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


I heavily edited the first and second sections. The first section is a rewrite although I retained many of the original ideas from the previous edit. The section section is more or less intact, with a few thoughts interspersed in between to make it consistent. The third section I did nothing with (except throw up a neutrality dispute) because I know nothing of Islam.

I thought it would be useful to include the models outlined in the three religions' sacred texts in order to identify a false prophet (this is very important when one considers what their context is within that religion). I likewise changed all verses to the New International Version because, inspite of the popularity of the King James Version, it is in clear English and only has a 10% paraphrase rate (actually, all Bibles are paraphrases to one point or another -- if you got a LITERAL translation, it'd be difficult to determine).

I also realize that many people may not like how I presented their religions, but my aim and goal was to be as unbiased as possible -- as such, I do not speak of the religions in terms of who is "absolutely right" and who is "absolutely wrong". In developing the models I did for determining "true" prophets from "false" prophets according to each religion, I tried to get the sacred texts to speak for themselves with a small summary at the end of each point. This should remove much of the bias. I likewise removed much of the anti-Islam diatribe and removed speculations regarding the identity of the Antichrist (this isn't a tract). I have not cited all of my sources yet, but will do so when I get the time (unless someone else wants to do it). I likewise removed the article from the "anti-Gnostic" category (where is Gnosticism even MENTIONED in this article?).

I think it would be nice to add other major religions, although I can understand why one would focus on the three Abrahamic religions because they are more or less a staple of Western culture. There also might become a problem if every religion is listed. What would we do then? Make a disambiguation article with links to such things as "false prophets in Christianity", "false prophets in Judaism", etc? This page could stretch on and on forever if such an undertaking was attempted. You could likewise just make it according to the Abrahamic religions with other religions listed in their own articles. I think this needs to be considered.

Although, one might want to consider merging it with the prophets article as well, both as a balance/counter-balance issue. The two could very well go hand-in-hand.

Just some ideas. Drumpler 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubbed the article to encourage adding to it. :) Drumpler 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am proposing making this a disambiguation page after all. What does everyone think? It could have the summary at the top followed by links to several articles detailing false prophets according to different religions. Drumpler 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although if we were to disambiguate, I'd suggest taking the first two sections and make a page about "false prophets in the Bible" and not particularly in Christianity or Judaism, since both go hand-in-hand regarding their tests of a false prophet. Drumpler 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "false prophets (Bible)" might be a better way to handle this.
Sorry, forgot to sign. Drumpler 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Restructured with sub-sections[edit]

Rather than repeat the verbose Theology and prophetic models surrounding false prophets as part of the title for each of the 3 main sections, it seemed sensible to me to use this a level-2 heading, and make the others into level-3 sub-sections. I have also removed the capitalization from the headings. DFH 14:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that was very sensible. However, I still think the Islam section is heavily biased (coming from a non-Muslim persuasion) and the neutrality dispute on that section should remain. Drumpler 08:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This biased rewrite is nothing but vandalism. This is not the place to waste space with definitions of old and new testament or absurd models made to forgive one of the subject's on the page. The bible quote that was removed and edited was replaced with an incorrect reference as well as a lecture about referencing??

The biblical definution of a false prophet is given in both the old and new testament as "judge a tree by its fruit", does the prophesy come true? There is no need for long winded stories of extensive speculation. The stories from the NT were placed in their own section, where they belong, as stories of false prophets.

A basic definition was a good place to start on this page. Confusing the simple self evident definition only serves self interested reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam: Undue Weight[edit]

I put a "neutrality dispute" in the Islam section. Might be best to mention that its better categorized as possessing "undue weight", but I do not know how to do this. Drumpler 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You do not make a case for the dispute on the talk page beyond saying that you tagged the section. Make your case if you have one then. IN the meantime I have removed the tag.--CltFn 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite[edit]

This article should deal with False prophet. It doesn't give a clear definition of a "false prophet", but instead defines it in terms of the ambiguous word "prophet". And then why does it start with the Tanach? It should instead start with an overview of the definitions (per religion). Every single prophet has been called a false prophet by one person or another. Buddhists, for instance, would consider all the Abrahamic prophets to be false prophets. This should be discussed in the article. The current format of Judaism, Christianity, Islam seems to be as a result of systematic bias. Also, it should give explanations as to when the term has been used. Jews, for instance, used the term false prophet to refer to Jesus, and Muhammad. But the article as it is right now seems to rely heavily on OR and synthesis of sourced material. I'll be fixing it up at User:Kirbytime/False prophet. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more in favour of the idea of writing a separate article for each religion's definition of a false prophet because I fear this article could get unnecessarily huge as people contribute their own beliefs as to what a false prophet is or isn't. What you might do is make a disambiguation page pointing to differing religions' views of a false prophet with an accompanying short definition. You might want to make a format similar to this page: List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes.
What I initially tried to do was go into the religions that were already on this page and use their sacred texts to give a bare minimum definition of how each religion views a false prophet. I do not know Islam so I left that religion alone.
I'll be watching your page and will contribute in anyway that I can. Drumpler 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to add that the explanatory paragraph, "In particular this article . . .", was only included because that's all the information that was available on the article at the time, but the view was to include that paragraph until some other editor came in and provided information on other religions. Look at the archives. I think its in much better shape than it was before. Drumpler 07:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That actually sounds like a good idea. False prophet could be a disambig page, leading to False prophet (Judaism), False prophet (Christianity, False prophet (Islam), etc. etc. That sounds very good. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nehemian the prophet[edit]

I am wondering if nehemia is a false prophet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Women Preachers[edit]

Why do so called Christians say they follow GODs words, but contradict what the Holy Scriptures say. Its plainly written in I Corinthians 14:34-35 That women are to keep silent in the church....That makes that preacher a Hypocrit.

(Lamar McPherson) (May 30,2007 12:11pm)

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I recommend reading WP:Verifiability when you get time. :) Drumpler 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern day false prophets[edit]

Joe smith has been proven a false prophet by the references given and the indisputable fact he made false prophesies. It is npov to pretend otherwise. Facts are not violations ofnpov, suggesting a biased mormon link be used to defend this false prophet is as npov as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again with the vandalism, the truth is here to protect and can not be won in a edit war. These references belong here, but the king james bible does not. It is not a real bible any more than king henry created a real church after he murdered 8 women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand anything in the part about the mormons. And that make no sense to look for a proof in religion : when there is a god, nothing is impossible, nothing is logical... Kromsson 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

False is false, if someone does not think this is NPOV, then start a thread about it. It is vandalism to keep bias deleting properly referenced views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is more than just references. The wording you have used, putting forth your own POV from one side, is why this keeps getting reverted. Adding more balanced information, such as those from the July 1988 issue of the Ensign magazine [1], may help out your article addition. Joseph Smith has not been proven to be a false prophet. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. Alanraywiki 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that a publication of the LDS is MORE balanced than scientific examination of the papryi or a Utah newspaper which states these are the real papyri?? There are 100s if not 1000s of references that clearly state Joe Smith is a false prophet and you expect me to use a source from

his church with claims that there are parts of it missing? 1st the LDS tried to claim they don't exist at all, and then when a museum comes up with them, they try to claim there are other parts missing?? The Museum of Modern Art is a very objective source. They know if they have all of a collection or a fragment of a collection. They have been in the collection business a long long time. The inventory of a museum belongs in an encyclopedia long before the pure speculation of other papyri with no proof whatsoever that they exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, for atheist, all prophets are false prophets, so one should always tell who think one particular prophet is false. And if you're alone thinking Joseph Smith is a false prophet, the world doesn't care.Kromsson 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Alone? there are 5 pages of google hits BEFORE you get to the wiki page on his false prophesies. Anyone who dares to make a prophesy and it does not come true is a false prophet. It is the very definition of the words. I proved Koresh made a false prophesy with a reference, not an opinion, so he belongs here. I proved Smith made a false prophesy with 3 references so he belongs here. These deletions are vandalism, pure and simple and some of them have been ruled as such, which is why this page and the others are staying put. The real prophets of the world, like Daniel, deserve to have the fakes exposed in real reference works. I really could not care less what an atheist, or anyone else's OPINION is on this call. Prove a false prophet by proving false prophesies.

Thanks for the comments, you have made the page much better by prompting me to post the bilbical definition of a false prophet. Prophetic status is like virginity, once you lose it, you can NEVER regain it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take an exemple :
"Primary to proving a prophet false is to prove they made false prophesies."
This is wrong. Many prophets are said to be false prophets before the time their prophecies should happen. This is a question of dogma. Joseph Smith is a false prophet for people who aren't mormon, but for the mormons, Joseph Smith is as true as a prophet can be. There is no logical proof to be done here. You think (and X billions websites say) that Joseph Smith lied and all, but you have zero authority on the mormon's dogma. I think Jesus was a false prophet, but I'm not Benoit XVI, so I shut the f*** up and don't mess up Wikipedia's page about Jesus. This is why I removed certain parts of the article. Kromsson 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a page on false prophets, so by claiming your religion makes you an expert here really proves the point convincingly. It still does not give you any right to vandalize this page. Wiki is not for 1 side to bully their opinion with such tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section on "modern day false prophets." To be NPOV, one would have to add "alleged" or "claimed" which is against wikipedia policy. It was only meant to be inflammatory, and served little real purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If we start giving specific examples of "false prophets" (defined by the common-sense criterion of "people alleged to have made predictions that didn't pan out"), then we would have to include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Jesus (and maybe a few others I've forgotten). And this will get very ugly, very quickly. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd assumption, there is not proof of any false prophecies from any real prophet, comparing these false prophets to Jesus is simply blasphemy. Dont try to win some edit war with threats, back up what you say, or step down.

We see what people can not achieve by debate they simply vandalize. How can a page on false prophets end with the bible? This is completely biased and censorship! There are false prophets in many corners of the globe and they need to be reported in any NEUTRAL article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This section should just go. It's pretty much copy&paste from Christian apologetics sites. -sigjejriwejrwijriwejwjkjfrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to label these sources Christian ? Most are written by a mormon and Christians are the ones being targeted by this bigoted insistence that only Christiand, jews and muslimsbe aallowed to be discussed. Are you claaiming there are no modern day prophets? Mormon literature given at the referemce site admits he made false prophesies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcC333 (talkcontribs) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of progress, all reference from any Cnristian site has been deleted. It only took the mormon book to prove Joe Smithmde false prophesies. The story of the discovery of the missing papayri is major proof and the salt lake city newspaper is all that is needed to prove him. I left a common Koesh quote. (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

Phelps Family[edit]

Just because everybody hates them, doesn't mean that they should simply get tacked to the end of an article which makes them appear unfavorably. They do that well enough themselves. 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Section on Mormonism seems biased[edit]

The bottom section on Joseph Smith seems both biased, and is formatted to be an eyesore. No other parts of Wikipedia have blatant ALL CAPS text and URLs randomly strewn about. Also, the meaning of this section seems to be incoherent at best. Delete the section, or at least reformat it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I cut out the crap on Modern Day False Prophets. This isn't a Christian apologetics website. (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)undersigned

I deleted it again. It is simply Evangelical spam. -shsuerireornaek —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What is incorrect about it? IT is not apologetics, it is a mormon listing why joe smiith jr was a false prophet. (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

Returned to last stable version[edit]

I do not necessarily think the last stable version of this article is correct; in fact, I think it's frankly horrible. It's a dictionary definition combined with a content fork, and I think there's a case for deleting this article entirely. But the last stable version is how we should leave it until a talk page discussion has taken place and consensus has been reached. The reverting should stop for the time being.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion the basic premise of the subject itself is so potentially inherently loaded with bias that it's probably best dealt with in a short entry in Wiktionary, stating its relativeness as part of the definition, rather than here in the encyclopedia. BMcC333 is correct insofar as that they're protesting the arbitrariness of only including some "prophetically" based religions and not others; but in my opinion they're only worsening the situation by attempting to focus in on the "falseness" of certain religious ideologies, as opposed to the "truth" of others. I'd wholeheartedly support the complete deletion of this article if it was proposed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now I think on it further, a redirect to prophet would be better than outright deletion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not create this page, but it certainly belongs imo. There are many religions and only 1 real one, so any neutral analysis should reflect this basic fact of life. The blanket deletions are not editing. Deleting bilbical definition of false prophet is the most uncalled for. Particularly unsettling is that someone appears to have deleted a bible quote and called it crap. Limiting discussion to only 1 religions is next. Glad to see there is finally some discussion.

The fact no one here can come up with an agreeable definistion of false prophet is proof the words should stand on their own. A false prophet falsely prophesizes. The only argument against this definition is someone saying "no it is not" YES it is. I suggest working on a real definition instead of continuing to attack Christians Jews and Muslims then claiming a definition is too tough. When the top part is agreed upon, we can work on modern day and paast versions of the definition as posted. IT is just vandalism to keepp insisting on this ridiculous biased definition that only attacks Christians Jews and Muslims . (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC) BMcC333

Please do not re-add the material until consensus is arrived at here on the talk page. Also, as a reminder, please don't label edits that other editors make in good faith as "vandalism", it is usually considered to be provocative and can often incite negative reactions from other editors. Please see WP:CIV and WP:AGF. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest not working on a real definition at all, because definitions belong in dictionaries and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All we need to do for a definition is point the reader to Wiktionary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
" ...There are many religions and only 1 real one..." certainly doesn't indicate any intent to comply with WP:NPOV. I'd happily enough redirect this thing to prophet. —Kww(talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By last stable version you arbitrarily mean one without any of my contributions, with no explanation or justification. Theh bible is a reference that can stand as truth. Expecting people to prove bible quotes with independent references is completely unreasonable. Why is this standard not applied to any of the other bible quotes here?? If someone is going to claim my religous choice indicates a bias, why doesn't everyone involved indicate their religous biass?? I am giving simple quotes from the bible and book of mormon without any biaas. if someone has made false prophesies, they belong on this page. This is why I turned this page over for dispute resolution. I am not the only one to say this so called stable version is biased. Why isn't this disute being resolved by the proper procedures? (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

I'll happily disclose that I'm a secular humanist. This dispute is being resolved by the proper procedure (which is to return to the last stable version until a talk-page discussion is concluded).

The consensus at the moment appears to be that this page should be redirected to Prophet, which would have the effect of concealing all the content (though it would still be visible via the page history). Would you object to that, BMcC333?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You really need to understand that "the Bible is true" is not a neutral POV. So far as the encyclopedia is concerned, religious beliefs need to be discussed as religious beliefs without passing any judgment as to whether those beliefs are true or false.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's say it isn't a neutral POV in the opinion of many Wikipedia editors. On, say, Conservapedia, the Bible would be considered truth.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1. my words are being twisted, I did not say the bible is true, I said it can be accepted as true in a referencte point of view. Everyone understands a religion'sbook is written from their perspective and can decide the relevance of the reference. There are 2 stories of creation to show some is a story. You seem to have ignored the 2nd part of my post. WHY ARE ONLY MY BIBLE QUOTES put under this standard and not the other 15 on the page? Neutral means equal application of the standards , does it not?? (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

Theh bible is a reference that can stand as truth (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

The bible has been an acceptable reference on this page for YEARS, when is is used to prop up this pseudo-definition, but as soon as a real definition is given, the bible is not good enough. Who is NPOV?? (talk)BMcC333

I attempted to remove all Bible quotes that were not the subject of commentary within the article. I was reverted. I agree that consistent treatment is necessary.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted Kww, and I apologised for doing so. My position is that the last stable version of the article is what should remain until the talk-page discussion is complete. I do agree with the principle behind his edit.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand. I was simply pointing out that I was not being inconsistent.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So we all agree the bible has been established as an acceptable reference on this page, regrets or not. My bible quotes should be restored for consistency. I also think the wishy washy definition of prophet belongs on the prophet page and can be linked when the word prophet is used here. While somewhat relevant, the definition of prophet is a side issue to a definition of false prophet, which absolutely belongs in the 1st parapgraph after some intro words. The most objective, humanist defintion is the one I gave; false prophets make false prophesies. (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

No. The Bible is an acceptable source for what Christian doctrine about false prophets is, when associated with critical commentary from reliable sources. It cannot be used to assert that any particular statement is true or false, and cannot presented as either true or false.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll say it again: no definition is necessary, so this whole question doesn't arise.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The bible quote was associated with critical commentary, that the definition is self evident from the words themselves, which jus happens to be the same definition as the bible gives. 2. The definition is required in any logical thought process. Just because it seems obvious to you, does not mean it is obvious to the wiki readership. In fact this talk page proves a real definition is required. One that is based on the words themselves, not someone's opinion of what the words should mean or how much slack a person who makes false prophesies should be given. As stated above being a True prophet is like being a virgin. Once it is over with, it can never be gotten back.

With or without a logical definition, Joe smith jr and david koresh are both false prophets. Joe smith jr's false prophet status issupported by the false prophesies in the book of mormon and a published book by a mormon. Why is this not sufficient and why are only Christians, Jews and Muslims allowed on this page? Others have also pointed out the NPOV nature of this arbitrary categorization. The only reply I get on this point is that the wholepage should go, when it has alreaddy been decided it should stay. A discussion should progress with some logic, not just an insistence on claiming to be right. You 2 are not right when you say the page should go, this is why real dispute resolution, by new non-biased people is required, not the same people who have been infelxible stopping any other opinion. (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMCC333

  • A definition is what would be provided by a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOTDICT for explanation). Therefore, if a definition is necessary, we should not try to provide it. Instead, we should offer a prominent link to Wiktionary, which would supply said definition.

    I remain convinced that this page should go, and that any discussion on any aspect of being a prophet belongs on the prophet page. It has not "already been decided" this page should stay. In fact, you are the only person obstructing the process of getting rid of it.

    Dispute resolution on Wikipedia does not address content disputes. It deals solely with conduct disputes. With content disputes, all we really have is the process of building a consensus on the talk page—but we can ask for another opinion, if you don't like the ones you're already reading. I will do that now.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

It seems to me that the notion of a prophet and a false prophet are intertwined (one cannot know what a false prophet is without knowing what a prophet is) and therefore it makes perfect sense to redirect the article to Prophet where the notion will be appropriately contextualized. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I a 3rd or 4th opinion? In any case, I agree a redirect makes sense. I also do not think that the Urantia Book is significant enough for its presence in the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree about the presence of The Urantia Book for two main reasons, which are: 1) According to Urantia Foundation "Since its inception as publisher of the book, Urantia Foundation has printed nearly 600,000 copies of The Urantia Book in six languages."[2] Also many other translations already exist. 2) The quoted four passages stay strictly in the subject. Uikku (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that books are printed and translations made is irrelevant, that just means they had the money to do it, it doesn't show anything more than that. Not only do we not know how many were read or sold, that's actually a pretty small number, especially if it is divided into 6 translations. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That source has existed in the literature more than half a century. The printed copies have been sold, not given away. The relevance of the passages in this subject is quite perfect. May I ask: What are your arguments? Uikku (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." So, do you mean that those passages represent a small minority or a tiny minority? The space and visibility given for The Old Testament and The New Testament are both much longer, which is ok according to WP:UNDUE rule. On the other hand, also the text content regarding Islamic teachings is short, but that may be correct if there are not many teachings about false prophets in Quran. Uikku (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good intro![edit]

Amongst all the whinning of everybody: the intro at least is a good one – in a topic that is in itself very controversial, the intro is neutral in tone and reflecting. I especially like:

Without exception, someone who is considered a 'true' prophet by some people, is simultaneously considered a 'false' prophet by others.

which is not only true but also blatantly true! It is simply worthy of consideration for each and every human. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Urantia section/where is Islam![edit]

Never ever heard of Urantia. Seems someone is using wikipedia as their propaganda scribble board, producing WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Considering the article The Urantia Book statement:

It teaches that the universe is vastly older than current scientific theories state,

it is most likely one of those movements that break the Deuteronomy 13:1-5 rule. The Urantia stuff should be in the Urantia article, not here!

The intro mentions Islam. I would like to know how Islam reflects on false prophetism. The Urantias are unimportant! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 14:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start a section entitled "In The Koran" or somesuch. Frotz (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There were accusations of original research and lack of neutrality. I'd like to see the evidence of original research. Is there any? On the other hand: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A source was clearly represented and it was verifiable. It is not correct way in Wikipedia that you just simply reject something you don't like. If you want Islamic texts here, then do well and contribute by writing the article or wait until someone else does. Uikku (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Uikku, the mention of "neutrality" was mine, pertaining to the issue of "undue weight" WP:DUE regarding the question of the presence and relevance of material from the Urantia Book in this article. In my opinion WP:DUE is fairly clear on the subject:


"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (italics added by me for emphasis)


In this context, it's interesting to note that the Urantia Book article itself does not contain any mention of the concept of a "false prophet". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be also interesting that:
  1. The Bible article itself does not contain any mention of the concept of a "false prophet".
  2. The Urantia Book is not a pamphlet about false prophets. Instead it is a book, roughly comparable size to the Holy Bible and it touches or deals with many issues. Do you expect that every aspect about that book should be included in that article?
  3. There are no separate articles about "False prophet in Judaism" or "False prophet in Christianity" or "False prophet in Islam". Those are included in this same article and that is good.
  4. You obviously consider the readers of The Urantia Book as a tiny minority, not only a minority, regardless of the number of printed copies of the book. I already touched this above.[3]
It seems to me that you try to stretch the concept of neutrality quite interesting way. Cheers. Uikku (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've already commented about the number of copies (which is relatively small) - and I'm dubious about 'sold' consider that the Urantia Foundation gives them free - "Urantia Foundation has a gift program that donates Books to libraries around the world and to people without means". There are a lot of libraries around the world, let alone a lot of people who might have been given them free. This site also says "Look in your local library. If they don't have a copy, have them ask for one from the Urantia Foundation of Chicago, and one will be supplied free." I think that pretty shows that your claim "The printed copies have been sold, not given away" is false. Why didn't you know that the Foundation gave them away to libraries and people who requested a coy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The books are not free, except from the receiver's viewpoint. Someone still pays. You can get better understanding about the Library Placement program from here: Library Placement. Anyway I don't see it as a significant deal of total printing stock. Uikku (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Urantia is certainly fringe but a reference to the fact that it mentions false prophets does not violate WP:DUE. If you want information on Islam than put it in however I'm going to be bold and put the short-reference to Urantia back in.Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Urantia is of such minor importance that references to it can be reasonably categorized as trivia. The Urantia article is the best place for information about it. Placing information about it in other articles is undue weight nearly by definition.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This looks to me like quite a clear-cut case of WP:UNDUE. It practically looks like spam. Uikki says above that The Book of Urantia is "a book, roughly comparable size to the Holy Bible and it touches or deals with many issues". Should there therefore be sections throughout wikipedia headed "The view of Urantia". I don't think so. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If there is a view where Urantia as a book is particularly applicable then let its opinion be heard there. To be honest I had never heard of it before now but if there is a copy in every library then it bears enough note to have a small section dedicated to it. That is not to say it deserves to include more points than the Islamic view, but if its singular view is more complex to explain then I see no reason why it cannot occupy a similar body of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree.[edit]

The revelation of Jesus Christ is to serve a purpose to all mankind and to fortell the endtimes. Although the Seven Churches or lampstands do stand for some sort prophecy. I do believe that the end times are going to be fulfilled, look at the american economy, look at the status of the world, statistically 96 percent of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled. Christians of the world, the time is at hand, act now, or forever be shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF :P (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Centralism around the big three religions[edit]

As much as I am at a loathe to point this out. This article looks at the Christian, Islamic and Jewish viewpoints as if they exist in a vacuum. Forgetting the Momonic offshoots and sub religions for a second, are we not missing the hundreds or thousands of people responsible for creating failed cults and independent religions as well as the non-religious POV? (e.g false prophets of natural disasters, worldly doom, or end of the world scenarios like asteroid collisions). I ask this not as a editor but as a wiki reader wishing to know if this is all there is to False Prophesy. (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

false prophets[edit]

The English is a translation of the Latin, which in turn is a translation of the Greek.Pamour (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False prophet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)