Talk:Benny Hinn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Next we got a vandalism on the net. I would try to delete the inappropriate statement on the main page.Gammadion 08:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would an objective article cite the "National Enquierer" as a source for diputing the validity of Benny Hinn's ministry? This is the same tabloid that reports citings of half-cat/half-man creatures! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5727sbj (talk • contribs) .

Actually, you're the subjectivist here. What matters are the veracity of the charges, not where they came from. If Hitler said 2+2=4, that wouldn't make it incorrect. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.120.160.26 (talk • contribs) .

Also, your charges against the National Enquirer are false. The tabloid that reports (as in, present-tense) "batboy" sightings, etc., is "Weekly World News". While it's true that the National Enquirer got its start running fanciful stories throughout the 50s and 60s, the launch of competitor magazines People and US in 1974 spurred the Enquirer to adopt a fact-checking policy. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.120.160.26 (talk • contribs) .

In addition, Benny Hinn later apologized publicly for his 1989 prophecies, stating that he was wrong for operating out of his flesh and desire for fame rather than his Spirit and out of service to God. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.184.135.18 (talk • contribs) .

Maybe he did apologise, but it still makes him a false prophet and earns him a place on the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.164.158 (talk • contribs) .

Sign your talk, please. There's a helpful button for this above the editing form. And please use the discussion before edits that totally mess up the rest of the paragraph. --129.241.103.90 15:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S: I fail for not realising that I was criticizing an old version of the main article.

File:Bennyblows.jpg

Benny Hinn blows.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the validity or neutrality of this article. If anything, it's far too lenient. Benny Hinn is widely recognized as a false prophet and charlatan by most Christians not under the TBN umbrella. He bilks millions of dollars anually from retirees living on small fixed incomes, while at the same time enjoying an opulent lifestyle that most corporate executives would be highly envious of. His heresies and false prophecies are well documented across the internet. --Mark (Tue Jun 14 16:24:58 EDT 2005) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ouphe (talk • contribs) .

Like the actual neutrality of an article ever stopped someone from flagging it? It's a really odd coincidence that the supermajority of disputed articles are about religious leaders or religions, isn't it? It's almost like no religionist can ever accept objective facts about their belief. "Neutrality" is growing to mean "compromise," which isn't the same thing at all. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.120.160.26 (talk • contribs) .

I have done some cleanup on the article.The statement that Hinn visits the grave of Kathryn Kuhlman to get her power was a lie.What Hinn said was that he visits her grave sometimes to get the 'anointing' from God.Big difference.Hinn has never said he has ANY power.I also inserted the POV warning at the top.It is a shame that a hit piece like this could be on wikipedia,and that it took a newbie to put some of it straight and add a POV tag.It looks like it's all right to attack Christians here.Go to the article Diane Feinstein and try to tell all of her efforts and see how fast the POV police jump down your throat.Saltforkgunman 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this BennyBlows crap?When I click on it,something comes up threatening to delete it in 2 weeks.Isn't it 2 weeks yet?I have done some more clean up on the article,namely the LIE that there is no way to verify faith healing.Benny repeatedly tells people to go to the doctor and get checked out when they get healed at his services.Saltforkgunman 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the letter is broken. I have removed it. If anyone can provide another link to that letter, that would be great. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Entheta (talk • contribs) .

NOT Christian-Bashing

Please know that this article is not an example of Christian-bashing. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Attempting to reduce the credibility of a well-known false profit who claims Christianity actually BENEFITS the Christian cause. By letting folks know that Benny Hinn is a money-chaser, we also help let folks know he's the EXCEPTION; he's NOT to be construed as an example of how all Christians operate.

Fine.Then it shouldn't take lies and half truths and distortions of Hinns' words to BENEFIT the Christian cause.Saltforkgunman 01:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Saltforkgunman: Be aware that your bias is getting in the way of common sense and logic. It is clear in the Bible that profits of God are ALWAYS correct and NEVER incorrect. Therefore, it follows that anyone who claims prophetic ability must also be correct 100% of the time with NO EXCEPTIONS. Accordingly, anyone who claims prophetic ability who is not right 100% of the time is, by definition, a false profit who is not really being inspired by God. If someone is incorrect in what they claim to be prophecy--EVEN ONE TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE EXCUSE--they are a FALSE PROFIT.

There really is nothing more to it. The intellectually honest MUST agree with this.

With this being said, Saltforkgunman, I invite you to listen to the audio of Benny Hinn himself in which he verbally speaks out his false prophecies. It's quite interesting. I'd also invite you to consider Hinn's admission of incorrectness.

Please be honest with yourself, Saltforkgunman; that's all I ask. --71.9.9.13 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think the word you were looking for was prophet... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 20:30

I came here and found this article was about 95% against Benny Hinn,with some inaccuracies that jumped out at me.I corrected them and added a POV tag and stopped there,since I had no other knowledge about the other issues cited in the article.

Yes,if Hinn made false prophesies,then he is guilty of being in the flesh.But that doesn't mean he couldn't repent and get back in the Holy Spirit.i hope he does.Saltforkgunman 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible for him to repent and have a good ol' holy ghost time again; this is true. But it is also true that God does not turn prophetic ability on and off with the flip of a switch. There is no biblical evidence to suggest that prohpetic ability comes and goes, and there's also no evidence that suggests a person can GAIN (or regain) prophetic ability after having made false prophecies. This is one of those situations where a person either has it or they don't. And, my friend, Benny Hinn does NOT have it.

The best Benny Hinn can do is repent, appologize for his false prophesies, and become a non-prophesy-giving pastor or preacher. Who ever said pastors must also be prophets, anyway?--71.9.9.13 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Benny Hinn is a FALSE PROPHET like those like Charlse Russell, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Kenneth Koplan, Ellen and James White ect. Jesus they would come False Prophet.

Why are you hell bent on "exposing" Benny Hinn? I've been to some of his crusades and many people get healed without Benny Hinn praying for them. Considering the fact that millions of people are being saved through his ministry, I think it would be better to leave the judging to God. Whether you believe it or not, people really get healed at his crusades. Considering his popularity and the amount of funds that go through his ministry; I'm sure the IRS is capable of conducting thorough investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.163.68 (talk • contribs)

to Saltforkgunman

the only POV I see within this article are from your edits. everything else that you claim is POV has been verified by necessary citations. --Phil 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect.Saltforkgunman 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Salt. Send Benny Hinn all your money. After all, he claims that this will make you prosper. If he's telling the truth, you have nothing to fear. And please post a copy of your check with your bank info blocked out onto your talk page so that we can confirm that you did this.

Or, if you're not willing to do all that, at least try to point out specific examples of alleged factual errors instead of just asserting that they exist. Unlike Benny Hinn, most Wikipedians don't have magical powers, so they don't know what you're talking about unless you tell them. [[User:70.112.98.188|70.112.98.188

"Pastor" Benny (Is he ordained?) needs your help: he can't zip around the world in his jet airplane (which he agreed to purchase from another ministry) because either he doesn't have the money to pay for it or he'd rather you pay for it. For a "gift" of $10,000 U.S. he will inscribe your name in the front of the jet, and for only $1,000 he will inscribe your name in a small room at the back of the jet (which he calls a prayer room) but is probably the head. Alternately, for a "gift" of $45 he will send you a plastic "temple" which contains a music box. Wow. The point is, people of other faiths, and Muslims in particular, see Mr. Hinn and others of his ilk, and wonder if this is what Christianity is all about. Nosyreader 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"This is Your Day," 21 August: For a $1,000 "seed" directed to something called "3 Miracle Harvests," God (not Benny) will erase all your credit card debt. I assume that if you put this $1,000 seed on your credit card, it will also be erased. Pretty good deal. Nosyreader 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hinn and Medawar

Before adding this section to the article, please cite reliable sources for all of its content. I've moved the section here for now:

On November 7, 2003, Hinn appeared on This Is Your Day! with Joesph "Jo Jo" Medawar, a Hollywood producer who ran Steeple Enterprises, a film studio co-owned by Matthew Crouch, heir-apparent to the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Medawar appeared on the show to promote a new show he claimed would be broadcast on TBN titled D.H.S.: The Series, a faith-based spy drama about the Department of Homeland Security. Medawar claimed that the show was receiving official backing from the real Department of Homeland Security and was based on a real life retired Homeland Security agent. U.S. congressman Dana Rohrabacher admitted to opening doors in Washington to let Medawar meet with five congressmen and staff members of the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee to pitch the show, and even introduced Medawar to Laura Bush at a GOP fundraiser. Medawar paid Rohrabacher $23,000 for Rohrabacher's own screenplay for the series. On Hinn's show, Medawar played the show's trailer and prayed with Hinn and some of the show's actors on-air.

Police arrested Medawar in September 2005 after they found evidence that's Medawar's proposal was a scam. The show was a cover to steal money from Steeple's investors - most of them churchgoing Southern California residents, including the retired Homeland Security member - by selling $5.5 million in Steeple stock they owned. It was revealed that Medawar's appearance on Hinn's TV show was a ruse to get guillible potential investors to give money to his project, only a small amount of which was used for the show. A vast majority of the money contributed to the lavish lifestyle of Medawar and his associates, including Alison Heruth-Waterbury, an actress who appeared with Medawar on This Is Your Day, who received $40,000 per month in rent from Medawar for her new Beverly Hills mansion. It was also revealed that trailer Medawar played on This Is Your Day contained film clips from other movies Medawar didn't produce nor had permission to use (such as Enemy of the State). Medawar plead not guilty on all 23 counts the FBI brought up against him, including mail fraud and obstruction of justice.

This incident was reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Wittenburg Door.

In addition, most of this content should be in an article about Medawar, not in Benny Hinn's article. At most it should be 3 or 4 sentences explaining that Medawar went on the show, that he was involved in a big scam, and that the show was a ruse to get gullible investors. All of these things need definite, reliable sources, preferrably online. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-17 15:02

I agree there. I've removed it for the time being. At the very least it needs decent references before it's added back. Jammycakes 07:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper usage of Hinn

The false prohecy and statements made by Hinn in this article are mostly debately or questionable in their falseness. For example a Hinn supporter could argue that Holyfield had a heart condition(as originally diagonsed by professional doctors), was cured by Hinn and after he was cured of his condition, doctors believed that Holyfield was misdiagnosed because he had no heart conditions symptoms. A Hinn supporter would say of course doctors would believe he had no heart problems on the second diagnoasis because Holyfield was cured. Thus it ultimately becomes a he said she said debate between whether or not Holyfield was originally misdiagnosed. No one can prove either way, because if I say I am a healer and John and Peggy are doctors. Let say that Mike has hurts his ACL. John, a long time doctor, has put Mike under all these machines and determined that Mike has torn his ACL. Now Mike comes and vists me the village healer. I put some bamboo on his leg and do the hookey pookey and shout some mystical jargon and argot. Mike leg feels better(in his mind, we don't know if it is actually better or not) goes back to the doctor to see if that healer was any good, except this time he sees Peggy and she tells him his ACL is a ok and she concludes that he must have been misdiagnosed.

Did John misdiagnose Mike, or am I a true healer, no one knows, there is no defintive way to determine whether or not Mike ever had a problem with his ACL because there is always the possiblilty that you can be misdiagnosed by a doctor, but if a mystical healer were to cure you the doctors would have to conclude that you were misdiagnosed. Doctors can't say you were mystical healed, because it isn't scientific and no one would accept that.

Help at Peter Popoff

Could editors who helped improve this article head on over to Peter Popoff and see what we can do there to make that article look more like this one? I just tagged that article with NPOV and since it seems to have escaped under the radar screen was hoping this would help it gain some visibility and a keen editorial revision.

Thanks,

--ScienceApologist 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fraudster?

The Fraudster category is inappropriate here since Hinn hasn't been convicted of fraud by a court of law, so any designation of him as such is POV. (See the Fraudsters talk page for a discussion on this.) I'm also a little bit unsure about the "Religious scandals" category too though that probably needs further discussion to reach a consensus. Jammycakes 13:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is There Any Proof on The AIDS healings?

I've just never heard of this man "doing the lizard" on someone and making their arms or legs grow back (then i'd believe), but all the same; does anyone know where any of his AIDS healings can be validated?--206.173.55.156 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)passoirt

You're joking, right? Actual healings? If he could do that, he'd have won the Nobel Prize, and made headlines around the world. The man is a fraud. -- Lacerta 17:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about proof heh. Homestarmy 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is proofed that he can't heal anybody!!!

Benny Hinn has NEVER,EVER claimed to be able to heal anybody.God heals people.Hinn has what is called a healing ministry.He prays for people and does a biblically correct practice called the 'laying on of hands'.To repeat,and I'll try to make this simple enough,GOD HEALS.Saltforkgunman 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In numerous cases he bragged about healing people.

List of questionable statements

The "questionable statements" in the list all come from the same source, "Illustration by 4G² Issue #191, January/February 2004". I am not familiar with this particular publication and haven't been able to find anything on Google about it other than references to this article here on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to what this publication is, where it comes from, who wrote the article in question, what is their POV, how reliable is it, are these quotes verifiable, and so on? In other words is this a reliable source? I'm flagging it as not citing primary sources until this point is cleared up. Jammycakes 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems these claims are part of an article by John Bloom from D Magazine, August 2003, reprinted here: http://www.trinityfi.org/press/heretic.html The accompanying illustration is by 4g², and that probably caused a misattribution.

OK thanks. If their statement of faith is anything to go by, they could potentially be the kind of people who would give someone like Benny Hinn a fair hearing, which is one important thing that we need to look out for as far as references are concerned. (I would be a bit more wary if they were cessationists for instance). On the other hand, they do seem to have some particular mission to dig up as much dirt on Benny Hinn and certain other ministries as they can. The other problem is that it's a tertiary source from what appears to be a publication that is primarily satirical rather than serious in tone. I've wikified the references to that article, though I'm pretty dissatisfied as to its value as a reliable, NPOV source. Some primary or secondary sources would help -- eg a direct reference to Hinn's claims that he was a brilliant but socially isolated student and similarly to a rebuttal of this statement. Who exactly diagnosed Evander Holyfield's heart condition in the first place, and who exactly claimed that he was mis-diagnosed? That's the kind of thing we need to look for as far as reliable sources are concerned. Jammycakes 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Healing timing / methodology

"At these services, Hinn carries out the purported miracles on whoever comes up on stage with an allegedly healed medical condition, whether it be Lou Gehrig's disease, or AIDS, or arthritis, or cancer. "

--- Can anyone clarify this sentence / process here? Either

1. the person claims they are healed before coming up onto the stage and the fact is recognised / confirmed on stage or

2. the person is healed when they are prayed for by Benny.

It doesn't make sense to say that Benny carries out a 'purported miracle' on a person with an 'allegedly healed condition' (unless the concensus is saying that the preacher and the 'patient' are in collusion ? Johnmarkh 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

List of questionable statements

am i the only one who thinks that that whole section is pov? i don't want to make any drastic changes uneccesarily, though. Colorfulharp233 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No you're not, and it's not limited to this section. There's a lot of soapboxing in this article, which, regardless of its accuracy, is not appropriate for Wikipedia, for the simple reason that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It also needs a lot of cleanup in terms of quoting (and wikifying) reliable, neutral sources. Jammycakes 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scandalous and Inappropriate Material

Acording to the rules of Wikipedia, Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. I tried to remove the scandallos material but a user calle KOS says that is vandalism. How is the removal of scandalous material from Wikipedia effected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.155.159 (talk • contribs) .

You're right in principle, but the problem was that your edit summary was vague and it didn't give a clear rationale for fairly extensive deletions to the article. Your edits did also seem a bit indiscriminate -- some of them would have led us to believe that Benny Hinn is not only perfect but doesn't have any critics either. A couple of suggestions I'd make are (1) state the reason for your edit clearly in the edit summary, wikilinking to the relevant articles on Wikipedia policy where you can, such as WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:BLP. (2) Make it clear what you expect of people in that respect when they're putting the content back (as I did when removing the Medawar section - see my edit summary in the page's history). (3) State what you have done on the talk page and why, and sign your talk using four tilde (~) signs. (4) It might be more appropriate to make several edits and give a clear and distinct rationale for each one rather than changing everything in one go. (5) If this does end up in an edit war, Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process that you can check out. (6) You would do well to create a user account and say something about your Wikipedia activity on your user page, so people know where you're coming from. If you do create an account, you can add this and other pages to your watch list and see what is happening with them. Jammycakes 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Giant Boners

Is it totally necessary to keep the reference to a huge erection in the History section? "Although he never met her personally, he often attended her “healing services” and has often cited her as an influence in his life. Ne has been plagued by numerous detractors throughout his career, most notably Hugh G. Rekshun." Wikimike 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very juvenile, and an ancient joke! :/ davilton 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag/quality of sources/general cleanup

User:Arbustoo removed the POV tag earlier today, saying there's no discussion on the talk page. I was a bit surprised at this because there's actually quite a lot of it. The article still contains a lot of soapboxing and this needs to be cut back. The negative content is also largely either unsourced or poorly sourced, in violation of WP:BLP. Jammycakes 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No current discussion. Last edit pertaining to the discussion was two weeks ago. Give some examples of BLP-violations to be addressed. --Arbusto 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is the overall tone of the "Controversies" and "Claims of prophetic ability" sections. They are too long, unencyclopedic in tone and read like soapboxing. They need to be cut back and rewritten in a more dispassionate tone, quoting (and wikifying) reliable sources. Some of the links at the bottom of the article could serve for this purpose -- perhaps they could be put into references as endnotes? I'd tidy up the article a bit more myself but unfortunately I don't have a great deal of spare time to do so at the moment. Jammycakes 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone else...

Does it bother anyone else that the only citations are to references that are essentially enemies of Hinn? Throughout the article there are suggestions that highly reputable news organizations have conducted investigations and produced in-depth stories about Hinn, but none of the references point directly to those sources. I suspect that the editors who included statements about the major news organizations never looked at those news reports, but rather relied only on a synopsis given by minor, biased sources of questionable reliability. It would be a good idea for someone to actually look at those well-respected news sources. It would improve the article a great deal. DismasMama 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I posted the above question a short time ago someone posted a link to the "fifth estate" video on YouTube which appears to be uploaded there in violation of applicable copyright laws. For the record, the complete video is available on CBC's own website in its entirety, and it can be found by clicking on one of the properly credited and formatted reference links already present at the bottom of this article.

It isn't enough just to post links to good sources or to mention that good sources exist. You need to use those sources to build the actual text of the article rather than adopting the tone and language of other non-important fringe-element sources to fill the article's substance. I'm no fan of Benny Hinn, but I don't think Wikipedia is a place for a debate between his supporters and his enemies.DismasMama 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New Claims

Hinn had radio talk show host Paul McGuire on his latest TV program. Hinn and McGuire discussed such things as suitcase nukes being smuggled into the United States and being detonated, the formation of a "North American Union" with a "amerodollar" currency, and the rise of the Antichrist out of the European Union.

Hinn made a comment "I don't believe we have more than 20 or 30 years before the return of the Lord." They discussed the inevitability of a nuclear weapon being detonated in the United States very soon. Very strong statements; can we add them? Clinevol98 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be detrimental to the quality of the article. On the other hand, there might be a place for it on Wikiquote if you can cite a reliable, verifiable source and it satisfies Wikiquote's notability and NPOV criteria. Wikipedia also mandates no original research. Jammycakes 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it just happened and it's not like Hinn has a huge viewing audience, I doubt if I'd be able to find a source so I could site it. Paul McGuire's website [1] is full of the statement but they were making, but obviously that doesn't prove that they were said by Hinn or on his TV program. I just thought that since these are more of the end of the world predictions-style statements they might have a place in the article since they cause a stir, even among Christians (I am one and don't believe any of this fear-mongering by Hinn, Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and others). Clinevol98 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I've moved the quotes, prophecies etc to Wikiquote as that is a more appropriate place to put them. I commented out the ones that didn't cite their sources for the time being. Jammycakes 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Benny Hinn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

== Article importance == I've rated this article as B-class quality as of 20 January 2007. The ministry and history section needs to be fleshed out a bit more and the controversies section is still a little bit messy and contains a number of weasel words. This article tends to attract vandalism and soapboxing every few days or so, so it needs to be monitored for POV issues and the like creeping in. Mid-importance for the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject: Benny Hinn is a fairly major character in the Charismatic movement. I'm not involved in the Biography WikiProject so I'll leave others to decide on how it should be rated there. — jammycakes (t) 00:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC) This article I'm giving a C-rating because it's biased and it falsey portrays accusations as being fact without backing them up with concrete proof.(Jfssoccer (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) I am restoring content you deleted because it contains a valid citation. You will also have to explain in detail why you have changed the rating as there are valid citations supporting the allegations reported in the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Another user has already made this reversion. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)