He is teaching a demonstrable falsehood, and not with a caveat. And frankly, I could (and have in other times and places) demonstrated the damage that preterism does to the faith. It takes the vast majority of Scripture, and for all practical purposes calls it irrelevant--only certain passages are expounded upon, and those not very well.
But that's a whole 'nuther discussion. For now, it's enough to note that you pick and choose who to get uptight over based on whether you agree with them or not. Better by far to simply say, "They're wrong, here's why," and leave the polemic ("False prophet! Heretic! Seducer of men from the Gospel!") at the door.
The more I read about Lindsey, the more he's starting to sound like Joseph Smith if you ask me.
Then you've read nothing about either man. Joseph Smith claimed direct, divine inspiration and messages. That makes him a false prophet in every sense of the word. Hal Lindsey simply comments on the times, shows how he thinks they line up with Scripture, and sticks in a bunch of caveats when he knows he's really going out on a limb.
Again, if you truly can't see the difference, then you are too Spiritually immature to continue this discussion with. That being the case, I'll probably be kicking the dust from my sandals after this round.
Since I've changed denominations, I see the lot has spent more time on prophecy than be workers Christ called us all to be.
You aren't in a position to judge. Prophecy is a part of Scripture. It is a part that is very poorly taught in most quarters. Therefore, for there to be those whose aren't just teaching it, but who have it (or see it, at the least) as their major calling in the Spirit should not be surprising to us, since there needs to be a correction of that imbalance in the Body.
But in any case, Hal's written and spoken on a lot more than prophecy--it's just what he's best known for. Chuck Missler's even more well-rounded (and brilliant in his commentaries), but he gets the same treatment from your lot.
But, again, all this is just a pleasant diversion from the real issue, the only one that I started out picking on you for: You claimed that Hal had made many prophecies as to the date of the Rapture. You have yet to back this statement up or back down. Until you do, you remain a liar and a slanderer.
Changing the subject? I point out another of his missed 'prophecies'.
Again, Hal does not and has never claimed to prophesy. By continuing to use that term so that you can squeeze in your "false prophet" label, you are knowingly continuing to lie, or you are too immature to know the difference. If you want to claim that Hal is a false teacher, that's more reasonable--but you'd better be prepared to use that same label on DeMarr!
And again, a single bit of commentary from Lew Rockwell does not "disprove" Hal. It simply presents an opposing view on an ongoing controversy. And since Messiah Yeshua, Sha'ul, Yochanan (John), and Daniel all refer to the existence of the Temple in the time just before the Second Coming, we who are premillennial take them at their word that there will be some manner of Temple. This is doubly reinforced with Ezekiel speaks of an even grander Temple after the Second Coming.
Let's see--the Messiah, the Apostles, and the Prophets . . . or Lew. Whichever should I side with?
Yes, I'm taking this (and you) lightly. It's kinda hard not to when you start out accusing Hal of making many predictions of the date of the Rapture, can provide only one (which I then ripped to shreds on the basis of what Hal actually wrote) and have since dodged all over creation to avoid any more of the "many" dates that you supposedly have in your collection.
Provide those other dates first, with contextual quotes, or back down and admit that you falsely represented the situation. Until then, you remain a liar, and I see no reason to have a serious debate with an unrepenatent liar.
I know that Christ will return as promised, I'm just not going to wrap myself up in the nonsense of trying to predict something even He said we couldn't do.
Frankly, you have yet to show that Hal has "wrapped himself in the nonsense of trying to predict something even He said we couldn't do." I'm still waiting for that.
I, and the vast majority of premillennialists, agree that "no one knows the day or hour." However, remember the context of that statement: Yeshua had just finished giving an outline of the signs (plural) that would lead up to His Coming: The birthpangs of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, etc.; the spread of the Gospel to every ethnic group (ethnos) in the world; the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place in Judea (which implies the rebuilding of the Temple--and I'm sorry, if you know what the AoD is, you know it didn't happen in 70 AD); the Great Tribulation; and the darkening of the heavenly lights. The prophets gave other signs.
What Hal and other futurists (myself included) are commenting on is the fact that many of these signs are either taking place, or else we're seeing the set-up for them taking place (like having a Jewish state in the Land of Israel again). Since Yeshua chided the Pharisees for not observing the signs of their own times (Mt. 16:3), we're striving not to make the same mistake.
Now, for the record, I do agree that pretribulational Rapturism (which I do not agree with) does pose the risk (not the certainty) of an escapist worldview, and that it is possible for one to become imbalanced in their walk in purusing Scriptural prophecy. However, I've seen equal risk and equally bad fruit on the preterist side (like making 90% of the Scriptures either incomprehensible or irrelevant), so you can't claim the high ground in that.
One thing we do agree on: When He tells us to watch for signs and to be ready, He's telling us to be about His business instead of trying to divine when it will happen. Yep. We've got work to do here. But that doesn't mean that we get so busy that we ignore the signs altogether. If God didn't want us to have recognizable signs of the Messiah's return, He wouldn't have given them to us.