Understanding sources is important and the first thing to say is that you are putting too much weight on what it says on familysearch (see the limitations of familysearch). The marriage entry is a submitted entry which in this case happens to correspond to the entry on the British Vital Records Index - so is almost certainly correct. The register entry will give additional information - the parish of residence of the couple, the names of witnesses, and whether there was a marriage licence (which can contain importance extra information if it survives).
The birth information on familysearch relating to James Ginger and Jane Timberlake is an invention to fit in with the way members described their ancestors when they did not have any relevant records. The "of Kings Langley" means no more than that they were later at Kings Langley (in this case to be married). The birth dates, 22 years before the marriage may be no more than guesses, the legal age of marriage without parent permission was 21. Such artificial entries should be discarded as telling you nothing more than you already know from the marriage register.
If you go back to familysearch you will find two James Ginger who were born within a few miles of Kings Langley. One was baptised in Little Gaddesden in 1784. and the other baptised in 1787 at Great Gaddesden and Nettleden. You will need to research both to see which (if either) is most likely to be your ancestor. You may find it useful to look at The inheritance of Single Christian Names and Right Name, Wrong Body.
There are no obvious candidates for the baptism of Jane Timberlake. See Where is my ancestor's baptism before 1837 for possible reasons.
An additional comment - had your realised that Jane Ginger occupation as a rag sorter meant that she too was in the paper making industry! Other mill workers in the household may also have worked in the local paper mill.
If you can add to the information given above tell me.
Page created March 2007