Which of Julie Green’s individual prophecies include explicit dates or falsifiable conditions, and what sources document their outcomes?
Executive summary
Julie Green’s publicly posted prophecies are typically dated by the day the “word” was received, and some individual items include calendar-like timestamps or clearly falsifiable conditions—most notably the so‑called “Year of Death 2022” cluster referenced in outside reporting and a set of dated words hosted on her ministry site and Rumble channel—yet independent documentation of outcomes is uneven and contested in the reporting examined [1] [2] [3] [4]. The available sources show a mix of explicit dated entries and conditional claims, a few of which were later challenged as incorrect by journalists and commentators, while the ministry itself posts compilations and categorizations rather than third‑party outcome logs [3] [4].
1. What counts as an “explicit date” in Green’s corpus and how the ministry presents dates
Julie Green Ministries organizes prophecies by the date the “word was received,” and the site and media pages therefore attach calendar dates to many individual messages, which creates an expectation that some pronouncements can be pinned to a point in time; the ministry explicitly notes that prophecies are categorized by the date received, not by publication date [1], and the prophecies page contains dated text such as “Babylon has fallen!” among other dated words [2].
2. Explicit dated prophecies found in the public record
Examples of dated entries in the public record include items listed with “Date Word Received” on the ministry’s site and in an independently created compilation on Rumble that reproduces those headings—for example, “Evidence is coming that will take many out of their positions” marked February 1, 2023, and other entries dated June 20 and June 22, 2022, which shows a pattern of calendar‑dating for specific messages [3] [1].
3. Falsifiable conditions versus symbolic language
Some of Green’s words are framed as concrete, testable events—phrases like “evidence is coming that will take many out of their positions” imply a falsifiable outcome (an identifiable release of evidence and measurable removals from office) [3]—whereas many other lines are broad, symbolic or rhetorical (“Babylon has fallen!”) and resist empirical falsification because they are metaphorical or open to interpretation [2].
4. The most widely noted “falsifiable” cluster: Year of Death 2022
Reporting outside the ministry has singled out a “Year of Death 2022” thread that named public figures such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as part of prophetic death claims; that reporting characterizes those prophecies as explicit, dateable predictions and highlights that they did not come to pass, which is the basis for critical coverage of Green in outlets and commentators referenced in the material reviewed [4].
5. How outcomes are documented (and contested) in the available sources
Julie Green Ministries and third parties create compilations and post videos that present prophecies and later claim fulfillment, but the record provided here shows no comprehensive, independently verified ledger of which dated prophecies succeeded or failed; an independently produced compilation on Rumble lists prophecies with their “date word received” and sometimes asserts fulfillment [3], while journalistic commentary documents failures such as the “Year of Death 2022” cases and treats them as disconfirming evidence [4]; the ministry’s own pages do not systematically archive counterfactual outcome data nor do the provided sources supply a neutral third‑party adjudication of fulfillment for each dated entry [1] [3] [4].
6. Assessment, competing narratives and reporting gaps
The factual record in the supplied reporting supports that some of Green’s individual prophecies are explicitly dated and that several carry clearly falsifiable conditions (examples: dated entries on the ministry and the “Year of Death 2022” claims noted by commentators), but it also shows a gap: independent, systematic verification of outcomes for each dated prophecy is not present in the sources examined, and critical coverage (cited here) frames several high‑profile predictions as incorrect—an alternative narrative the ministry’s compilations often push back against by asserting fulfillment without third‑party corroboration [1] [3] [4].