Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00302)

Yes, you are right, it cannot be a simple mistake.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Pablo,
> 
> You wrote concerning C.W. Leadbeater:
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> There is a birth cetificate indicating 1854 as his year of birth. In
> his passport, however, the date was 1847. And by that time the
> registers were not at all well kept in many parts of the world.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am not at all certain as to the relevance of your statement which 
> reads:  "And by that time the registers were not at all well kept 
in 
> many parts of the world."
> 
> Unless I am overlooking something here, we are NOT talking 
> about "registers" in "many parts of the world" but record keeping in
> England.  And as far as I know, English records were "well kept."
> 
> But I would remind you that we are not talking about JUST ONE 
record 
> that might contain an error but multiple records made at different 
> times and by different people.  I give the list below and I ask you 
> to review them.
> 
> (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) February 16th 1854 date was given in the English census of 
1861.  
> [according to http://www.cwlworld.info/html/bio.html ]
> 
> (4) February 16th 1854 date was given in the English census of 1871.
> [according to http://www.cwlworld.info/html/bio.html ]
> 
> (5) Leadbeater's mother gave his age [confirming the 1854 birthdate]
> when registering her husband's death.
> 
> (6) In the Anglican diocesan records, Leadbeater gave his birth date
> [1854] on his application for ordination in the Church of England
> 
> (7) 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).
> 
> It is possible that one record might contain some kind of error but
> to suggest or maintain that 7 SEPARATE records are ALL wrong,
> INCLUDING records completed by Leadbeater and his mother, is
> certainly not a rational hypothesis.
> 
> And in your remark:  "the registers were not at all well kept", I 
> assume you are suggesting the possibility of some error creeping in.
> 
> But note well that in all these records [excluding record (1) which 
> was made before CWL was born] the date is the SAME:  1854.  If 
> an "error" was to be found maybe in one of them, we would put that 
> down to some clerical error, etc.  But all are the same.  How could 
> the SAME "error" creep into all of them?  
> 
> Why would Leadbeater's own mother give his age [confirming the 1854 
> birthdate] when registering her husband's death?
> 
> Why would Leadbeater give his birth date on his application for 
> ordination in the Church of England as 1854?
> 
> How could these two separate documents by two separate people 
> contain the same "errors"?
> 
> If you can really "make sense" of all of this by maintaining some 
> kind of "error," I would like to know how to do it.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>