Theos-Talk Archives (July 2005 Message tt00127)

Sova7777 wrote:

"...But this conclusion is based on pretty hard 
evidence that has been shown."

Konstantin replied:

"Not hard, but SOFT, for we have only an eletronic text, 
not a paper document...."

Konstantin, I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Maybe I 
misunderstand you.

I would say yes we have HARD evidence. If you take the time and 
effort you could obtain or have access to the following "paper 
documents":

==================================================

(1) British marriage records indicate that
Leadbeater's parents were married on May 26, 1853.

(2) Leadbeater's own birth record indicates that he
was born on February 16, 1854.

[NOTE: Connecting the facts presented in (1) and (2),
one can see that Leadbeater was born about 9 months
after his parents were married. Not surprising in
light of known facts about human reproduction.]

(3) Leadbeater's mother gave his age [confirming the 1854 birthdate]
when registering her husband's death.

(4) In the Anglican diocesan records, Leadbeater gave his birth date
[1854] on his application for ordination in the Church of England

(5) In the census return submitted by Leadbeater in 1881, he stated
as Head of the Household that his age was 27 (i.e. born in 1854).

=======================================================

Gregory Tillett has taken the time and effort to locate these
HARD documents and even presents a photographic facsimile of the 
birth record.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc