Which Julie Green prophecies have been independently fact-checked for fulfillment, and what were the verdicts?
Executive summary
Independent public scrutiny of Julie Green’s prophecies is sparse and uneven: a handful of specific political predictions attributed to her have been recorded as unfulfilled by commentators and community forums, while many of her published prophecies remain unverified or defended by her ministry [1] [2]. Major independent fact‑checking organizations do not appear in the provided reporting, so most “fact checks” in circulation are journalistic critiques, commentary pieces, and forum posts rather than formal rulings [3] [4] [1].
1. Which explicit prophecies have been examined and what evidence exists
Publicly cited failed items include at least two discrete political predictions: an assertion that King Charles “would never wear the crown,” which did not come to pass when he was crowned, and a prediction that Herschel Walker would win a political race, which also failed when he lost; both claims are documented in community reporting and discussion threads that cite those outcomes as disconfirming evidence [1]. Separately, Green’s ministry publishes prophecies about turmoil in U.S. leadership — for example, that “someone is being replaced, and another one will say they are stepping down when, in fact, they are being forced out of their position” — but independent follow‑up tying that wording to a specific realized event is not presented in the sources provided [2] [5].
2. What counts as an “independent fact‑check” in the available record
The materials supplied do not include determinations from established fact‑checking outlets (Snopes, PolitiFact, AP Fact Check, etc.); instead the “checks” are journalistic critiques, denominational commentary and online forum assessments that note failed, ambiguous, or politically motivated prophecies [3] [4] [1]. One conservative religious website frames its critique as identifying “inaccurate prophecies that have failed to be fulfilled,” while other writers contextualize Green’s prophecies within Christian nationalist political movements rather than offering line‑by‑line adjudications of prophetic truth [3] [4].
3. Verdicts offered by the critics and their basis
Critics who catalog specific misses treat those misses as evidence that Green has made “inaccurate prophecies” and therefore fails biblical tests of prophetic authenticity, citing concrete events that contradicted her statements (for instance the coronation of King Charles and Walker’s electoral loss) as straightforward refutations [1] [3]. Cultural commentators go further, arguing that Green’s political prophecies function to amplify grievances and political aims rather than to offer verifiable predictive content, which frames alleged failures as part of a broader social role rather than isolated mistakes [4].
4. Defenses, ambiguities and limitations in the record
Julie Green’s own ministry publishes numerous prophecies and stresses interpretive themes (the prophetic era, wolves in the president’s midst), and it warns that many social accounts impersonate her, complicating attribution of statements and outcomes; this makes independent verification of every claimed prophecy difficult from the sources provided [2] [5]. Some defenders argue that prophecy is not disproven until all conditions are met or that timing and interpretation matter, a point raised in polemical responses but not fully adjudicated in the material here [3].
5. What remains unresolved and where reporting is thin
A centralized, methodical catalog of Green’s prophecies with timestamped texts and systematic follow‑up is not present in the supplied sources; a prophecy‑tracking entry at ProphecyIndex is shown as “pending,” indicating independent archival work is incomplete [6]. Consequently, while a few high‑profile misses are cited in commentary and forums, many of Green’s published prophecies remain either ambiguous, unconnected to a single realized event, or unevaluated by formal fact‑checking organizations in the materials provided [2] [5] [6].