Talk:Hal Lindsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Presbyterian church[edit]

I noticed in the section of past prophecies that have not been fulfilled, it is stated that Hal Lindsey predicted that in the 1980s, all of the major Christian denominations would reject the main tenets of the Bible. Actually, this has in fact occurred in that the leadership of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ and others have rejected the Bible's assertions that Jesus was born of a virgin, died as a sacrifice for mankind's sin, was resurrected by God the Father and is alive eternally in Heaven. So, my view is that Lindsey's prophecy has been entirely fulfilled. It was over these issues and others that the Presbyterian Church in American (a smaller denomination) split from the main denomination about 12 years ago. Similarly, there are smaller groups within the United Methodist Church which advocate splitting from the large denomination for the aforesaid reasons and other similar reasons.

From the Book of Discipline, the official beliefs of the United Methodist Church:

Article II - Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

But, I guess I can't count of fundamentalists to bother reading. It's so much easier to attack others for not sharing your POLITICAL beliefs.

Since when are the "Presbyterian Church in the USA, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ" "major Christian denominations"? These are very small compared to catholic or orthodox christinity or calvinism or lutheranism. Most europeans consider them sects of dubious ideology.

The United Methodist Church is the second largest protestant denomination in the United States. I believe they are also among the 10 largest christian denominations world wide.

When did Europeans become selected to judge which denominations are important? I must have missed that.

Further, with respect to Lindsey's prophecy that the EU would unite, that there would be a joint miliary among member nations and that there would be one EU leader ~ this prophecy appears to be very close to being fulfilled. Certainly the advocates of a strong EU, of which there are many, hold this as a much-desired goal.

Strong EU military? What have you been smoking? Most europeans are looking to cut military spending front and rear and spend it on welfare and economy. Most europeans are at least passively hostile to anything that has to do with military and our governments are in fact cheating each other in a weird race to achieve zero arms spending.
Lindsey did not predict that the EU would unite, he merely noted that it was uniting, and had been doing so for a long time. Lindsey claimed that it would one day reach ten members, and would then be the Beast. It has far exceeded ten members now but its beastliness is still debateable. Vreejack 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Western European Union has 10 full members - it's quite possible he's suggesting that the WEU, the EU, and a "harlot" religion will become the Revived Roman Empire that he predicts. F22 Raptor 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Here in Hungary a NATO air defence base radar was not built because the hilltop grows protected flowers, literally, no kidding! Civil protest forced the gov't to find an inferior alternative site, but it would irradiate a big city, so it won't be bult there also. No one wants that radar or anything military in general.


I agree that the tenor of this article is negative and the "NPOV protest" is probably appropriate. I am not a dispensationalist and don't agree with much of Hal Lindsey's end-times prophecy statements, but this article is not even handed. The article could be made acceptable with a little rework. However, I will wait a while for the opinion of others before I take a stab at it. Jim Ellis 03:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I made a few wording adjustments which I feel justifies removing the "NPOV protest". If you disagree, please be specific about your concern so it can be addressed. Jim Ellis 03:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I took a shot and fixing the NPOV problems and added more information. I added information (with reference) that TBN later recanted their contention that content had nothing to do with their preemption of Lindsey's program.

I removed "Virtually none of Lindsey's verifiable predictions have been confirmed by history" because it is drawing an arguable and sensitive conclusion. I'm not comfortable that the entire "Predictions" list is comprehensive or fair. In fact, it seems to be a collection of negative predictions. But there's certainly no need for an editorial conclusion at the end. --Ghartwig 08:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to point this out, but. This media whore twisted scriptures and current events to make a book that would sell more copies. When proved wrong, he just changes it and ignores the truth. If there is a NPOV problem here it is that any honest assessment will have to paint him as a liar and a cheat.Russ The Rail Guy 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

omg that's harsh, but yeah; I think the entire 'article' reads like a long-winded summary of Hal Lindsey's views, rather than about Hal Lindsey proper. He's no longer important enough to warrant more than a 3-line paragraph, and his dispensational—pre-trib to boot—doctrines had become virtually extinct outside of the U.S. even at his peak popularity decades ago. JohndanR (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
--heh-- I have to agree, the article looks like public relations for a scammy fraud, not really a BIO. However Lindsey is still WP:BLP so being fully accurate and reducing the advertising is probably pointless, it's not as if anybody still believes any of the nonsense he sold to the rubes, marks, and suckers. Damotclese (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

additional revisions[edit]

Thanks to User:Ihcoyc for some additional info and for editing/deleting to maintain Neutral POV. Also thanks for fixin' my "it's". :-) Regards, Jim Ellis 14:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

date of birth, other bio details[edit]

I am amazed that such a public figure has no apparently identifiable Date of birth, that we do not have his parents names, the names of his (various) wives, etc.

I also wonder, why the bio detail (that he was a Korean war vet, that he decided to study theology after working as a Miss. Riverboat pilot etc...) was deleted. Is his work as a (somewhat failed) prophet, and a (very successful) author the ONLY point an ENCYCLOPAEDIA should have about this guy? I would think that standard Bio information would be important. But apprently, despite being a public figure for over 30 years, none of this information is available!?!? It feels "odd" I spent a few hours trying to find it. Does anyone else have reasonable sources? Rick Boatright 18:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links and excerpts from internet sources. Have at it. Regards, Jim Ellis 19:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Born in Houston, Texas, in 1929, Harold L. Lindsey dropped out of the University of Houston to serve in the Korean War, then worked as a Mississippi River tugboat captain. When his first marriage broke up, he contemplated suicide, but instead found a Gideon New Testament and was converted. Lindsey became an avid reader of Scripture, particularly prophetic sections, which convinced him that the Bible was truly the Word of God.

"Though not a college graduate, he entered Dallas Theological Seminary in 1958 (with the help of "Colonel" Robert Thieme, pastor of Berachah Church in Houston, where Lindsey had attended), and graduated with a degree in theology. He also met his second wife, Jan, and they became missionaries for . . ." (incomplete article).

"As a seminary student, Hal worked with Campus Crusade for Christ and continued with them until 1969. Hal helped set up a special Bible School next to UCLA in 1969 named "The JC Light and Power Company", which produced many ministers and missionaries. This school continued until 1976. During this period, in 1969, Hal wrote his first book, "The Late Great Planet Earth". It was published in 54 languages and has sold an approximate 35 million copies."

"Hal Lindsey, formerly a tugboat captain in New Orleans, attended the Dallas Theological Seminary, the heart of American Dispensationalist apocalyptic inquiry, where he studied with John F. Walvoord, author of the 1974 best-seller Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis. After touring extensively with the Campus Crusade for Christ, an evangelic ministry, Lindsey established Christian Associates, a prophetic ministry based in California. Deriving his authority from apocalyptic scripture alone, he has spoken on an impending third world war (as Armageddon) to U.S. military intelligence committees, the American Air War College (an Air Force strategic training center), the U.S. State Department, and the Pentagon itself."

"Hal Lindsey was “born again” in 1955, when he was reading a Gideon's Bible while serving as a tugboat captain on the Mississippi River. He dove into the Word, earnestly studying the Bible, with guidance from Rev. Robert Thieme, from 1955 to 1960."

Yep, no DOB, no wives names, just as I found last time I tried. And as for the pre-salvation personal history, I _put_ that in, and someone borked it. I'll try again later. The problem is, I want this to read NPOV, but putting in stuff like this comes across as POV when I want it to just be a BIOGRAPHY. -- Well, I'll try later. Rick Boatright 00:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that Lindsey is, or claims to be, a Christian minister. In the late 60s he was a member of the "Plymouth Brethren," a Christian group which does not recognize the legitimacy of an ordained ministry. Unless someone points to a reference describing him as a minister, he should be removed from that list. atterlep 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


His web site says : In 1994, Hal was awarded a doctor's degree from the California School of Theology.

  • There is a SOUTHERN California School of Theology, which is Claremont. But they list no record of Lindsey in the list of honorary doctorates they've awarded.
  • Concordia lists themselves as "California School of Theology" But they don't award doctorates.
  • The California Pacific School of Theology in Glendale is sometimes refered to without the "Pacific". [1] This is _NOT_ the same place sometimes refered to as
  • the California GRADUATE School of Theology in Glendale [2]

Anyone know what degree granting institution this really refers to before I add it to the BIO section? Rick Boatright 01:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I read someplace that it was an "honorary" doctorate and assumed to be from California GRADUATE School of Theology in Glendale, but I can't confirm. That school is unaccredited and some regard it as a "degree mill" anyway. So, I wouldn't add the "doctorate" to the Bio info without better source. BTW, very good job on reworking the article to include the Bio info. Thanks, Jim Ellis 16:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
No kidding, how many places have a page about how to apply for an honorary doctorate?!?!?Rick Boatright 13:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hal Lindsey is Making Predictions–Again[edit]

Hal Lindsey is Making Predictions–Again By Gary DeMar

Hal Lindsey is once again making predictions about the end times using Israel as the prophetic time piece. In his latest article on the subject, he claims that the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin is prophetically significant. Here’s how he explains it: “These religious authorities [in Israel] believe it was necessary to re-establish the Sanhedrin because only this properly ordained body of sages can authenticate a Messiah when he comes. There is a growing expectation of the long-awaited Messiah to appear among devout Jews. The rebirth of the Jewish state and recapture of Jerusalem has increasingly influenced this conviction.”1 So Jesus was not the Messiah, and the NT is a fraud. That’s the logic of Lindsey’s position since the Sanhedrin did not authenticate Jesus as the Messiah. If the Sanhedrin of the first century was wrong, as the NT says it was, what makes Lindsey think that the Sanhedrin of the twenty-first century is going to be right?

Operating from a false premise, Lindsey then makes this observation: “The religious sages began to consider the rebuilding of the Temple and reinstitution of ancient animal sacrifices as prescribed in the Law of Moses.” So what? What verse in the NT mentions anything about rebuilding the temple and reinstituting animal sacrifices? There aren’t any. Not a single verse in the NT even intimates that the temple needs to be rebuilt. The NT doesn’t give any prophetic significance to the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus does predict the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–34), but nothing is ever said about it being rebuilt. Jesus Himself is the true temple (John 2:19–21) as are believers by redemptive extension (Eph. 2:19–22). The NT couldn’t be any more clear on these points. For those of you who doubt me on this because you’ve heard that the OT predicts that the temple will be rebuilt, let me point out that the temple where Jesus was presented in accordance with the law (Luke 2:21–3, the temple He cleansed (Matt. 21:12–17), and the temple He predicted would be destroyed within a generation (Matt. 24:1–34) is the temple the OT predicted would be rebuilt.

Lindsey believes that these events are “extremely important to students of Bible prophecy.” He believes “that we are very near the final climactic events that end with the Second Coming of Christ.” We’ve heard this before. Let me take you back to 1970 and the book that made Lindsey a prophecy star, The Late Great Planet Earth: “The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matthew 24:34, NASB). What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.”2

You do the math: 1948 + 40 = 1988. Seventeen years have passed, and Hal Lindsey is still considered a “prophecy expert.” In an interview that appeared in the April 15, 1977 issue of Christianity Today, Ward Gasque asked Lindsey about his infamous “generation” quotation:

“But what if you’re wrong?” Lindsey replied: “Well, there’s just a split second’s difference between a hero and a bum. I didn’t ask to be a hero, but I guess I have become one in the Christian community. So I accept it. But if I’m wrong about this, I guess I’ll become a bum.”3

This was Lindsey’s assessment of himself. He set the standard for his own work. The 1980s came and went without his end-time scenario coming to pass. This should have made him a “bum” and led to the end of his prophecy career. It didn’t happen. So why is his latest claim that “we are very near the final climactic events that end with the Second Coming of Christ” taken seriously by anyone?

I feel that this is a bit unfair to Hal Lindsey.
In response to the sacrifices at the temple, I don't remember off the top of my head, but the Left Behind series had the same story, and Hal Lindsey diverges from them a lot; if the OT mentions the rebuilding of the temple after the Messiah's death, then that should be considered valid.
Mainly, I feel that the arbitrary definition as a generation being 40 years is erroneous; Noah lived to be over 100, Moses, 120, and it also states in Genesis 6:3 that no man shall live to be more than 120 years old. If you consider a generation to be 120 years, that casts a whole different light on his "failed prophecy". Nemo 12:28 am CST
Lindseys statements and time tables are educated guesses. Lindsey is an interpreter, not a prophet. While trying to credit him with being wrong you don't acknowledge how the current situation in the world is actually falling more and more in line with what the bible has predicted. Also as to your comments on the temple...Jews are not Christians. Hal statements are in reference to what an orthodox Jew would think and do. They (Jews) do not have the NT, they live by the old covanent which commands them to built the temple. That will happen when they have the opportunity. Lastly Lindsey is an interpreter, not a prophet. Dean 3:44 am PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers to the above hate attack on Hal Linsey
To answer your question of the Rebuilt temple & the New Testament, Both Revelation & Daniel states that the Anti-Christ will stop the sacrifice in the temple after 3 1/2 years. there must be a temple & a sacrificial system in place if he is to stop it. although I don't agree with everything Lindsey says, he is at least 99.9 % right in applying scripture to today's news. He was right about the EU & thanks to the New Socialist Usurper-and-Chief Obama, he will be right about the end of America.-- (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your lame attempt to disprove what he said by taking him out of context & adding in your own lies about the "1948 + 40 = 1988" A generation in the Old Testament was 40 years but in the New Testament it is 70 years. Tthe Greek word used here can also mean that at least one person who was born in 1948 would still be alive when the end comes. Hal Lindsey has never set dates for the 2nd coming because he like all real Christians know the that the Bible says NO MAN CAN KNOW THE DAY OR HOUR the best we can do is know the season which began in 1948. If you spent more time in the Bible & less time trying to trash others, you might know that. I think your whole section should be deleted because it is nothing by lies & Anti-Christian hate but true to wikipedia, they will delete my section & keep yours because they like you also hate Christians!!!!!!!!!!-- (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's enough. This page is for discussion of the article, not for airing opinions about Hal Lindsey. The best way to respond to someone else's bias is with silence, or a polite reminder about the purpose of this page.
Accusing other editors of "anti-Christian hate" violates both Wikipedia's principle of civility and (it seems to me) Christian ethics (Matt. 5:22). — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet not one editor rebuked Gary DeMar's for his attack post of lies, they just rebuke the one setting the record straight. your response proves my point! The only way to prove me wrong is to start printing unbiased things about Christianity - but we both know that will never happen!-- (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wasn't the original crap deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV again[edit]

I'm not a fan of Lindsey or the fundamentalist crowd, but this article has quite bad NPOV problems in the Reputation section (specfically the bits referring to Zion Oil) and is in desperate need of a cleanup to provide good, encyclopedic prose rather than a collection of various quotes. If we're going to be critical of Lindsey, let's do it in a way that provides some credibility, people. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 01:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, I've had a go at de-POVing the article, and cleaned up the text as best I could. The article is about 2/3rds shorter now, no doubt eliciting a gasp from Inclusionazis everywhere, but most of the deleted text was just designed to make Lindsey look bad. Not only does he not need any help in that department, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a forum for debunking every kook in the known universe. Eaglizard 15:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Eaglizard. Thanks for your efforts here. Jim Ellis 15:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

glad you've kept your opinions to the talk page, for now. (I removed the christian hate that was here)Gotta remember that one.

The following statement leading off the "Biblical Interpretations" section strikes me as odd: "The core of Lindsey's teachings is the belief that Jesus Christ is presented in the four gospels of the New Testament as the divine Son of God and the Jewish Messiah." Within the overall context that Lindsey is regarded as non-mainstream or speculative in his Christian beliefs, someone who didn't know better would think that the belief that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and the Messiah is also an extremist or non-mainstream view within Christianity, when in fact it is wholly orthodox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia or the little shop of horrors?[edit]

Is Wikipedia a register of mentally ill people? If no, why does this militant lunatic getting such a long article? He actively seeks WW3 via encouraging to rebuild the Zionist temple by destroying the currently standing Muslim Rock Dome. Are western fanatics more acceptable than eastern ones?

Hal Lindsey's sanity is not the issue; it is influence. He was once an adviser to Ronald Reagan, and his books were among the most read in the US, as well as outside it. He cannot be ignored, as much as you or I might wish he were. The article should explain why he is important, and as far as I can tell it does that. Vreejack 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Under the heading prophecies the article states: "The fact that there were seven countries in the Common Market related them to a beast with seven heads mentioned in Revelation."

In fact there were six signatories to the Treaty of Rome (signed 1957, entry into force 01 jan 1958). This is a fairly significant factual error and should be corrected - I have little interest in prophecies of this sort and hesitate to simply delete existing text since I would not know how to correct it. If the author can fit the six founding members of the European Communities (Belgium, France, Germany (West),Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands) into some plausible numerological or apocalyptic framework fine - but let's get the facts right!Wildbe 12:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new at this so I may be posting in the wrong area (my apologies if so) but why is his entire speaking schedule for 2 years (at this point both past and future) included? Doesn't the man have a website and people paid to promote this for him? Does he have to use a free public information service to get an audience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaghettimachete1 (talkcontribs) 01:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


I deleted the statement saying that Hal Lindsey believes a generation is 40 years. Nowhere does he indicate this and, based on his Bible-based prophecy "interpretation", it seems likely that he uses that Bible's definition of the length of life. F22 Raptor 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey calls a generation "something like forty years" in The Late, Great Planet Earth (1971), on page 148. The Bible calls a generation 40 years in Numbers 32:13 and Hebrews 3:8-10. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. The verse he was referring to (Matt 24:34) says that the generation "will not pass away" i.e. die. Therefore 120 years seems logical to put there instead of 40 F22 Raptor 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I speak English and a generation is the period of time between one generation and another. A generation can be 20 -40 years depending how old people are when they have children. Whilst it is a felxible definition 120 years is stretching it a bit to put it mildly.
Most fundamentalist literature in the 1970s (Jack T. Chick for one) all assume the "generation shall not pass away" reference referred to 40 years - I don't see Lindsey as any exception. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with F22 Raptor that the length of a generation is not relevant to that verse. The verse gives a period of time, saying that that generation will not pass away before it happens. As long as a single person is still alive that was alive then, it's still valid. But what is important for this article is what Lindsey thinks. Does anyone have a copy of the book and can check the CONTEXT of his statement? --Ghartwig 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of 24 July 2006[edit]

I reverted the edits made by (talk · contribs) for various POV and accuracy reasons. Let's go through them one by one.

  • The following passage was deleted by the anon IP:
Lindsey also promotes various conspiracy theories regarding either the USSR or the European Union being the home of the Antichrist and describes liberals as an "enemy that hides in the shadows, doesn't play by any of the rules, and is determined to use any means to bring about our literal annihilation." [3] [4]
I see no reason why this should have been deleted. Both assertions are documented in the links cited. Lindsey first fingers Europe in The Late Great Planet Earth and is even more explicit about Europe in his DVD The War to End All Wars.
  • This was also deleted by the anon IP:
He has been divorced three times...
Again, this is verifiable from various sources, including [5], [6] and [7].
  • The anon rephrased a sentence to read:
...destined to become the revived Roman Empire ruled by the Antichrist stated in the Bible.
"Antichrist stated in the Bible" is redundant, really, since we're talking about the Bible. "A" revived Roman Empire is a matter of construction, rather than a definite article.
  • The anon rephrased a sentence to read:
...he explicitly identified the former Soviet Union with the apocalyptic nation of Gog which is the anicent name of Russia.
This is not accurate - Gog is not the ancient name of Russia. It was identified with Russia (notice the distinction) by the Scofield Reference Bible, but Scofield provides no reasoning for such an identification except for making a bare assertion that Meshech and Tubal are Moscow and Tobolsk, respectively (see the article itself), therefore Gog must be Russia. This is dubious reasoning at best, but in any case, to assert that Gog is the ancient name for Russia without qualification is wrong. In addition, whether Gog is a person or a nation is up for debate, depending on which language you read it in (see Gog and Magog#Identifications). At best, we can call Gog a "figure", which is vague enough to encompass both ideas.
  • The anon rephrased a paragraph as follows:
Hal Lindsey describes the Biblical forecast that the end days would be within the generation that sees the establishment of Israel as a nation again (1948) and Jerusalem being under Jewish control (1967), and wrote in The Late, Great Planet Earth that a generation is "something like forty years." and then Jesus will come and establish his kingdom soon after.
The Bible says no such thing, really. This is purely Lindsey's interpretation of Matthew 24:34: "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." A literal reading of Jesus's words, in context, actually implies that the generation he's talking to will see the fulfilment of His Kingdom. To reconcile this with the fact that obviously this did not come to pass, 1970s dispensationalism had to come up with another interpretation of it, and it Lindsey that made the link with Israel's foundation in 1948 in The Late Great Planet Earth, and in that book he was quite explicit about the forty year period, not "soon after".
  • The anon rephrased a sentence as follows:
Many of Lindsey's verifiable predictions have been confirmed by history.
This, as far as I am aware, is absolutely false. If Lindsey has made "many" verifiable predictions subsequently confirmed by history, please cite them. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Verified material of section blanked by Neutralhomer[edit]

  1. 05:46, 21 September 2007 (hist) (diff) m Hal Lindsey (Reverted 2 edits by Bee Cliff River Slob identified as vandalism to last revision by SirEditALot. using TW)

(The following is the User:Bee Cliff River Slob contribution to Hal Lindsey with Promoting Zion Oil & Gas. Inc.):

Promoting Zion Oil & Gas. Inc. (section edited)

On April 1, 2004, Lindsey used his WorldNetDaily column to promote the sale of shares of Zion Oil and Gas, Inc.[1], and cited Biblical prophecy as a basis for suggesting that there was oil reserves to be found within Israel.[2]

Lindsey failed to mention within the WorldNetDaily article that one of the directors of Zion Oil was Ralph DeVore, a cousin of Lindsey who works as director within the Hal Lindsey Ministries[3]. The Dallas Business Journal reported at the time of Zion Oil & Gas initial public offering (IPO) on July 15, 2003, that DeVore owned an 18.1% shareholder interest in “...very risky” stock offering.[4] DeVore has since resigned as a director from Zion Oil.[5]


2. ^ “Israel, nation of miracles.” Hal Lindsey . WorldNetDaily. April 1, 2004
3. ^ Zion Oil and Gas, Inc. Form FWP. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. February 8, 2006.
4. ^ Hal Lindsey Website Ministries. IRS Form 990 "Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax." 2005.
5. ^ “Zion Oil & Gas plans IPO.” William Hoffman. Dallas Business Journal. July 16, 2003.

6. ^ Zion Oil & Gas, Inc., Form 8-Z. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.January 5, 2005

(the references were correctly linked at the article page, although that may not show up here at the discussion page.).Bee Cliff River Slob 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just a whole bunch of crap that you have already tried to pawn off and add to other pages here on Wiki. It isn't going to work. - NeutralHomer T:C 14:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for this disagreement. It seems sourced. Basejumper2 07:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Heading Titles[edit]

Some of the things in the biography section seem more suited for a section on his views. They aren't reallly biographical. Basejumper2 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think we need some sourcing in the predictions section. It could be a BLP violation (and I understand we are stretching things here, which is why I said could be) to say that he made innacurate predictions without sourcing the predictions. Thanks. Basejumper2 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ad hominem[edit]

I am no fan of Hal Lindsey. The man terrified my grandmother. That being said, I do not think that ad hominem attacks are appropriate. For example, it is mentioned that he has had four wives. How is this germane? The wives are not named, and no citation is given. The real reason is to make him look like a chump. Conservative Christians do not approve of multiple wives, and I am sure the writer was aware of that.

Back to a neutral perspectives boys and girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think bringing up the four wives is appropriate (if true) in a biographical article. After all, the article is about the man as well as his beliefs and teachings. But I agree that if you're going to bring up his wives, you should name them and provide the dates and circumstances of the divorces and/or deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography of Hal Lindsey, ergo the "Traditional Christian Family Values" aspect of his multiple marriages is entirely relevant. And yes, the names and other relevant biographic information about his serial wives should also be provided if only for completion and -ref- references. If nobody else does that, I will do so. Damotclese (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this here at all.[edit]

This man has been proved incorrect time and time again. (the USSR is gone) Is Wikipedia going to be a place that any one who gets a book published, no mater how wrong it is can have a bio? Russ The Rail Guy 13:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railguyruss (talkcontribs)

Well, the man is an accomplished fraud and a liar, selling BS to rubes, marks, and suckers successfully for decades, but that is why his biography is part of Wikipedia: he was financially successful and he is yet another classic example of how easy it is to defraud the religious. Had he been a mundane crook, I might agree that his biography would not rise to the level of being encyclopedic, but he is highly successful at lifting money from people who lack the wit to avoid being swindled. Famous crooks have biographies because they're famous. Damotclese (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rapture Ready Cult external link removal[edit]

For the editor who removed the external link to the Rapture Ready cult's web site, I restored the link sice it appears to be valid. Damotclese (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hal Lindsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The automated link checker is correct, it was a dead link and the Wayback Machine is still valid. Damotclese (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Excessive external links?[edit]

An editor suggests that there are excessive external links. I do not agree, there are something like 6 or 7 external links pointing to right wing Christian extremist web sites which appear to be legitimate coverage of the extant cult leader, and 7 are not too much. Damotclese (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend Damotclese, I hope you are well. It's not personal and I'm not an opponent. I merely disagree. If a third editor disagrees with me and restores your links, I won't revert again. Is that fair? In the meantime, I think you shouldn't add the sites again because they aren't particularly strong, neutral or helpful. Let's see what now happens. Regards, George Custer's Sabre 21:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
If you have a good reason to remove the external links, please note them. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way: I'm not opposed to removing the external links provided there are good reasons. I want to ensure that the reason why editors remove legitimate content is not ideology based. If there are good reasons for your removal of the links other than "too many" (which is not a good reason) please let me know. If it's just because you don't like the "World Net Daily" and other right-wing web sites that are being linked to, that's something I agree with but it's not a good Wikipedia reason. :) Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh! I gave the reason, Damotclese: "because they aren't particularly strong, neutral or helpful". But you just couldn't help adding them again. You want it your way. Fine. Keep them. George Custer's Sabre 03:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"Too many" is not a good reason, but please don't get discouraged just because another editor asks for clarification of reason. I understand that everyone is a volunteer that works on this project, I hate to think that I have discouraged your efforts to improve the page. I don't feel strongly about the external links, I just want to make sure they're not removed for ideological reasons.Damotclese (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)