South Africa—Dutch Reformed Church Registers, 1660–1970 [Part C][M3XV-5R3]
These seem like membership records, but I'm not remembering from the previous time.
These are 99% BAPTISMS, and on these the church used the BIRTH DATE not the baptism date. There has been much discussion on this yet batch after batch is having to get sent back for reindexing because people are still saying they are memberships. The films are all here https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/968412?availability=Family%20History%20Library Note that the first film does have a sprinkling of marriages which are starting to come through now, but these are distinguishable because both parties are mentioned1
P Livingston, please hold on to your indexing, I am working on this query of maryellenstevensenbarnes1 at the moment.
Will come back to you as soon as I have seen the batches.
@P Livingston There is a huge discussion thread so I'm tagging @Hester Korff Wolmarans and @Melissa S Himes to help you --best wishes 😎0
I hope someone is seeing this. I have been correcting many of these. Thank you Gary.0
Okay, I am now indexing these as baptisms, although since the date is a birth date, I'm not sure why we aren't using "birth" instead of "baptism.
Thanks to all who clarified.
Ok all of you,
These are ALL books with indexed pages that tells you that each person's (A to Z) baptist record, are on the page number stated on that page. They all are actually in another batch with original handwritten information about the baptism event. Just as these batches goes to indexers to type the info in, THOSE batches will also get indexed when someone gets the batch, page for page.
Parish registers (index), Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, Cape Province, 1665-1898
The entire batch states in (parenthesis), they are all indexes, that's all it is. Since we have had the discussion, there had been numerous people that had queried this matter. Just imagine, each indexer or reviewer get one page to do, and each of them doesn't know what to do with these batches.
I hope all of you understand my explanation.
Harmon, James Bartlett, Beverly Cantrill1, Dennis Yarrington, Roy Blaine, galebj, and P Livingston and anyone else who is indexing our South African Projects. Regarding the batches of Baptisms where the date is the Birthdate and the Place is the Baptism place as mentioned by Gary Noble is correct. Gary is active in this group and he has the expertise to answer any question on South African Indexing correctly, so please refer to him and ask him. He will not lead you astray.1
thanks for the counseling. I appreciate all the help I've received. You are all awesome :)1
mod note - posts have been edited to remove violations. Please see the Community Code of Conduct for more details.0
@P Livingston That didn't make sense to me either, but I concluded that a researcher would be more likely to have an ancestor's Birth Date from other records, than to have the ancestor's Baptism Date. If the Birth Date is known then these registers will lead you to the Baptism Records. Sadly, the Project Instructions still say to list the dates under Baptism Dates. Some in the group have been trying for months to get this corrected and it just doesn't happen.0
Thanks to all for the direction. I just returned a batch, because it opened as a designated birth. I don't know if the system put that designation in to alert the indexer or what, but with the previous direction to index these as baptisms, I'm just going to send these back. i'd like to do them, but it just too confusing to keep tracking them each time.0