Q about IGI dates COMPLETED

[willow154]

There is a tendancy, I have found, in the new "free" churches for people joining to be encouraged to be baptised again - adult baptism. (I know that the Baptists believe in adult baptism). It seems they do not believe baptism as a child/baby is acceptable/ideal.
Although I understand their reasoning,  I cannot help feel that this does create some sort of non-acceptance of those who choose a different route, and encourages separation/elitism amongst Christians rather than a single body working together for Christ.
Just my own thoughts.
Kind regards,
Paulene

[chinakay]

That isn't quite it, Paulene...

The Bible is quite clear that baptism is intended to be for believers. One who has personal faith in Christ as their personal Saviour should be baptised.

Babies are not capable of this. Therefore infant "baptism" doesn't count.

It isn't necessarily baptism of an adult, but baptism of a believer, that Baptists engage in. They are not encouraging elitism, but obedience to God.

So you may find a lot of "second" baptisms in Baptist, evangelical and free churches. Some of those churches feel that a child (not a baby) is able to come to an understanding of Christ as their Saviour, and are willing to baptise a child in recognition of this. Others do not. Therefore, you may find a very wide range of ages involved in these baptisms...I know a lady who was 92

Cheers,
China

[willow154]

Hi China,
Actually as soon as I posted this I realised it wasn 't the right place - it was just my own thoughts /concerns arising in response to the previous comments in the thread regarding second baptisms.
It was a concern expressed, as someone trying to understand both stand-points -  knowing committed Christians in both types of church/denomination.
I apologise for the term elitism, it was the wrong word to use - just feel it is sad when someone chooses a different route(in a church which upholds infant and adult baptism) that we can't all work together. I do understand what you are saying, China.
Sorry if I have offended.
Kind regards,
 Paulene

[nickgc]

Getting back to the question of 1 year date differences, here is my take on it, and it has proved correct many times.

Oftentimes (especially in US before 1900) censuses are the primary - if not only - sources available.  Required birth registrations were late-coming by the states, and church records often don't exist.  Plus, as people in the US and Canada moved West, the availability of their "church of choice" often wasn't there.  I have seen families who were strict Presbyterians in Scotland and Nova Scotia, attending Anglican, Methodist, and even Baptist churches for baptisms, marriages, and burials.

Censuses in Britain seemed to be taken (normally) in March;  in the US the norm was June, but I've seen anywhere from early January to September.  Say an individual shows up as 20 years old in an 1860 census, and 30 yo in 1870:  the tendency is to subtract 20 or 30 and come up with a birth year of 1840.  For a census taken in March, you only have a 25% chance of this being correct, and if taken in June, only a 50% chance.

I have found this "off by one" error many times in my own research.  What I now do is put the birth year (in the above example) down as "ca 1839-1840" until I find definitive proof.

I would guess that the IGI entries go for the easy fix by simply subtracting.

Nick

[chinakay]

Hi Nick, that's a really good point about the birth month...and if the problem was confined to census history I'd say there's a good chance of it explaining some of the discrepancies.

But, it cannot explain multiple entries such as:

James Sheard, son of John Sheard, 09 Jun 1733 Hartshead, Yorks

James Sheard, son of John Sheard, 09 Jun 1734 Hartshead, Yorks

Cheers,
C

[chinakay]

Hi Paulene, no offense...just pointing out why "second" baptisms happen and why there may be a large difference in age between the infant's ceremony and a later one, with no uniform or predictable interval.

Cheers,
China

[LoneyBones]

China, you don't say if these (James Sheard) are Bishop's Transcripts or Members submissions.
Members submissions are often all over the place and while I use them as a starting point 'til I find a more definitive source I don't take them as proof.
Bishops Transcripts I take as 99%, but not 100%.
Getting back to the original question;

Why do some dates in multiple listings differ by exactly a year? Or, something I haven't seen before, one month?

I think it basically answers itself. Multiple listings are by definition member's submissions and members are human and therefor capable of making mistakes.
Until we have all parish records and all census's transcribed and on-line, we just have to go with what we have. Even then we will only ever be 99% sure.
But then can we ever be really sure of anything? 
 
Leonie.

[chinakay]

Hi Leonie, in this particular case the 1734 is the extracted record and the 1733 a member submission...I know the member submissions can be "all over the place" especially when they say "about" a date...they can be 20 years off. But why the same day and month, but a year out??

cheers,
C

[trish251]

Hi Leonie, in this particular case the 1734 is the extracted record and the 1733 a member submission...I know the member submissions can be "all over the place" especially when they say "about" a date...they can be 20 years off. But why the same day and month, but a year out??

cheers,
C

Cause they had looked up the parish record and mistranscribed it would be my suggestion. I have done similar myself. I have also found in rather later times, folks often lied about their year of birth on military records (to make themselves older or younger). They usually retain the same date and month to avoid "forgetting" their birthday

Unless you can contact the person who made the submission, it will always be guesswork (perhaps an educated guess) as to why they are a year out from the parish record.

Trish