Posted on 06/30/2019 7:12:34 PM PDT by grumpa
Hal Lindseys book The Late Great Planet Earth, written in 1970, sold over 28 million copies. Gullible Christians got sucked into Lindseys soon end-of-the world poppycock. As time has passed without his version of Armageddon taking place, we can now objectively analyze where Lindsey went wrong:
Lindsey (p. 54, 181), like other dispensationalists, placed the beginning of the end with Israel becoming a nation in 1948. He thought all prophecy would be fulfilled within a 40-year generation (Matthew 24:34). But 1988 came and went, proving him to be a false prophet. (This should be adequate proof that 1948 has nothing to do with Bible prophecy.)
Lindsey (p. 44) prophesied a 7-year, world-wide, tribulation. He got this from Revelation 11 which speaks of the holy city being trampled for 42 monthsand two witnesses prophesying for 1,260 days. He simply adds both of these 3 ½-year periods together to get 7 years (of tribulation). There is no indication in the text that this is a valid interpretation. He was reading something speculative into the text that is not there. Indeed, there is no passage in the Bible that clearly teaches a 7-year tribulation. Further, Jesus limited the time of the trampling of Jerusalem to his own generation (Luke 21:22, 32). (Interestingly, the final assault on Jerusalem by the Roman army under Titus lasted 42 months from AD 67 to AD 70.)
Lindsey (p. 87, etc.) saw the existence of nuclear weapons as an important sign of the end times. However, Jesus taught that the so-called end times would be when Gods people would fall by the edge of the sword (Luke 21:24). Jesus prophecies were about ancient warfare, not modern nuclear weapons. The context of this prophecy by Jesus was about the coming destruction of the temple (Luke 21:6). Jesus told his listeners that it would happen when THEY saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20), in THEIR generation (Luke 21:32). This all happened when the Roman armies invaded Jerusalem in AD 67-70.
Lindsey (p. 56-57) said, It is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt. Prophecy demands it. Problem is, not a single verse of the Bible can be mustered to support a future rebuilding of the temple. This idea is merely an invention of dispensationalists to try to justify their theory.
Lindsey (p. 88, 124) even makes this astounding prediction: The prophetic Scriptures tell us that the Roman Empire will be revived shortly before the return of Christ to this earth. A new Caesar will head this empire. Its hard to believe anyone took this charlatan Lindsey seriously.
Lindsey (p. 108), in speaking of the Antichrist, He will have a magnetic personality, be personally attractive, and a powerful speaker. He will be able to mesmerize an audience with his oratory. But the Antichrist is never mentioned in Revelation, let alone any such description of him. The Antichrist is only mentioned in Johns epistles, which say that the Antichrist was already in the world when John was writing (1 John 4:3). Indeed, John taught that it was already the last hour as he wrote (1 John 2:18). If you believe John was an inspired writer, this precludes any future fulfillment.
Lindsey (p. 125, 126) said that modern drug addiction and witchcraft is evidence of the sorceries of Revelation 9:21. He quoted a TV station that Nearly every respectable high school these days has its own witch. (Besides the obvious problem of nonsense, Revelation itself teaches that it is about things that MUST SHORTLY TAKE PLACE (Revelation 1:1; 22:6). Indeed, there are over 30 passages in Revelation that reiterate that its fulfillment was near, soon, or about to happen.
Lindsey said that we should take the Bible literally (p. 176). Obviously, he doesnt take the over 100 imminence statements literallythat biblical prophecy would be fulfilled SOON, AT HAND, BEFORE SOME IN THE FIRST CENTURY HAD DIED, IN THEIR GENERATION, etc. (Matthew 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:34; Luke 21:22; Acts 2:14-20; Hebrews 1:2; 10:37; 1 Peter 4:7, 17; etc., etc.)
Lindsey (p. 133) said that the Harlot Babylon is some future one-world religious system clothed in purple and scarlet. But, Revelation itself teaches that Babylon is the great city (Revelation 18:10) upon whom wrath was to come. The Great City Babylon is clearly identified as Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8)! Further, purple and scarlet are the colors of the ritual dress of the high priest (Exodus 28:5-6; 39:1-2). So, the evidence supports the view that Revelation is about Gods judgment on Old Covenant Israel.
Lindsey thought that Revelation was written in 95 AD. But there are some two dozen clues within Revelation that it was written prior to AD 70. Revelation refers to events that match the historical record of the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-70. The book was written DURING the tribulation per Revelation 1:9, apparently while the temple was still standing per Revelation 11:1, and during the reign of the sixth emperor of Rome per Revelation 17:10that is, Nero who died in AD 68. Over 130 scholars have been identified as holding to the pre-AD 70 date of Revelation.
Lindsey (p. 164) thought the Day of the Lord predicted in the book of Joel is in our future. But the inspired apostle Peter taught that Joels prediction was being fulfilled in his own day (Acts 2:14-20).
Lindsey (p. 179) taught that the elements of 2 Peter 3 that would be destroyed refer to the most basic element of naturethus the physical universe. But EVERY TIME in the New Testament that the word elements (Greek, stoicheion) is used, it refers to the elements of the old covenant (Galatians 4:3, 9; Colossians 2:8, 20-22; Hebrews 5:12-13). So, what was to be destroyed? the old covenant, not the physical universe (Hebrews 8:13).
Lindsey (p. 180, 181) references Daniel 12 as predicting the end of the world. But Daniel 12 itself says that the TIME OF THE END would be when the power of the holy people would be shattered and the daily sacrifices for sin taken away. That clearly happened in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. Daniel 12 could not be clearer.
Lindsey (p. 176) taught, as do all premillennialists, that Christ will establish a literal, physical kingdom on earth. But Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
I could go on. But this is enough to demonstrate that Hal Lindsey is a deceiver and a false prophet. Lindsey is reported to be worth $42 million, which is, apparently, after his first three wives got their share. (He is married to his fourth wife.) Hal Lindsey has not only bilked millions of people out of their money, he has made a mockery of Christianity.
For more about Bible prophecy, see my website www.ProphecyQuestions.com.
and that was the point.
Just ask Berney Sanders.
I’m glad we’ve got the Lindsayisms settled.
The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD fits much of Revelation.
My grannie likes to watch him on TV, I find him hard to listen to. I sit with her just to keep her company but wow, the way he talks and enunciates words .....
Maybe not a good author, but he was great on “Barney Miller.”
By the way if you don't think the European Union is the possible reconstitution of the Roman Empire then you aren't thinking hard enough. If you can't see how the forces of evil could take it over and use it for end time purposes then you just don't want to look at how modern circumstances may fit.
Do I think we are in the end times? 1% chance yes, 99% chance another millennium will pass before things start lining up.
“Where Hal Lindsey Went Wrong”.
By getting up in the morning. From there it was all downhill.
CC
Hal Linden: (with Max Gale, Ron Glass, Abe Vigoda, and Jack Soo):
I do not recall Hal ever claiming to be a prophet.
So, it’s not just me....
His books helped point many to Christ, even if his interpretations were sometimes somewhat stretched.
That is probably more than the rest of us have done.
Unless Iran goes nuclear then all bets are off.
I’m with y’all. Saw the headline and first thought was the Barney Miller guy. Caused me to look him up. Alive at 88, God bless him.
Lindsey (p. 56-57) said, It is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt. Prophecy demands it. Problem is, not a single verse of the Bible can be mustered to support a future rebuilding of the temple. This idea is merely an invention of dispensationalists to try to justify their theory.
Seriously?
In Ezekiel 4048 Ezekiel sees a detailed vision of a grand and glorious temple. If the vision is to be literally fulfilled, then the fulfillment must be future, for nothing like what is described in Ezekiel 4048 has taken place up to this point. The dimensions of Ezekiels temple are far larger than the temple in Jesus day, and that temple was a grand structure.
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning that which is past) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).
A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.
In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.
External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitians reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos after the tyrant was dead (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the Father of Church History, identifies the tyrant as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, Americas most prominent preterist, admitted that the tyrant here meant is probably Domitian. Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an old man. If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.
Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitians reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate. The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudiuss reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).
Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.
Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.
The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of Johns writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.
Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Neros persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).
Arguments for the Early Date Answered
In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.
Writing Style Differences
It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospelwhen the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.
In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:
B. B. Warfield contends that:
R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.
Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:
No Mention of Jerusalems Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.
In response we note the following points.
First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.
However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalems destruction in 11:8, where the great city, in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodomnot merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).
Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:
Nero Associated with 666
Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.
To come up with such an interpretation one must:
add the title Caesar to Neros name; compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and alter the spelling of Caesar by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.
All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.
Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).
In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written
But, Revelation itself teaches that Babylon is the great city (Revelation 18:10) upon whom wrath was to come. The Great City Babylon is clearly identified as Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8)! Further, purple and scarlet are the colors of the ritual dress of the high priest (Exodus 28:5-6; 39:1-2). So, the evidence supports the view that Revelation is about Gods judgment on Old Covenant Israel.
You lost me there. Jerusalem definitely is not Babylon, never was, and never will be. Lambasting Lindsey for his errors, this author suffers the same affliction.
Babylon means confusion.
Our world is very confused.
Was his book taking hits away from your blog? What is your point? Not sure anyone is paying attention to a 1970s book at this point.
What is (was) your blog’s position on the latest end of the world in October 2017? Did you predict that one? Did you get that right? Did you have to tweak/adjust after that? Are you taking a “We know it’s coming, but Linden was wrong in 1970” approach to the whole thing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.