Autobiographical memory recalled by Neville in his lectures. Year derived: age 6 + birth 1905 = 1911. Told 1 time (?). Judged his own (not a retold third-party story) by the whose_age adjudication.
Jordan told Victor that the fourth Goddard son belonged to God and could not be diverted from the definite work for which the Lord sent him; Victor told Neville the story after Neville returned following twelve years away.
Date (happened)
between 1920 and 1929
unresolved
between 1920 and 1929
stated · probable · preferred
c. 1911
stated · possible
Source
age 6 + birth 1905 = 1911 (1 statement, told ?)
c. 1960
stated · probable
Told / reported
25 June 1971
estimated · probable
Why
Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
Reasoning
Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1134 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1134 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-25 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1964-1-31 refuted; 1971-6-25 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1964-01-31 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1964-01-31 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
31 January 1964
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1134, 1964-1-31) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-25. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
31 January 1964
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1134 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1134 delivery claims: 1964-1-31 doubtful; 1971-6-25 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1134, 1964-1-31) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-25. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Mystery Election ¶46 ("When I was only six")
- Purpose Revealed ¶50 (But,” he said, “don’t touch the fourth one. He belongs to God. The Lord has sent him to do a definite work; so don’t touch him. You can’t persuade him to do anything outside of that work that God sent him to do.” So, I happen to be the fourth one.)
- Mystery Election ¶43 (Only a few years ago when I went back to Barbados, my brother Victor—he had never told me this before and what brought it up I don’t know—but he said to me, “You know, when I was a boy of eight and therefore you were six, the prophet Jordan”—we had a man…)
- Prophecy Astrology Chart They Will Tell Work That Did (Purpose Revealed / Jordan the Prophet excerpt)