Share Share Share 107 Views no discussions Tweet FaithLifestyle Tiny church finds original King James Bible by: – March 28, 2011 Sharing is caring! By Richard Allen Greene, CNNHilmarton, England (CNN) – A little English village church has just made a remarkable discovery.The ornate old Bible that had been sitting in plain view on a table near the last row of pews for longer than anyone could remember is an original King James Bible – one of perhaps 200 surviving 400-year-old original editions of arguably the most important book ever printed in English.In fact, the Bible at St. Laurence Church in Hilmarton, England, was sitting right under a hand-lettered sign saying it was an original.The sign said it had been found in “the parish chest” in 1857, that the cover had been added, and that it was the second of the two impressions published in 1611 – the year of first publication.But no one knew whether to believe it, parish council member Geoff Procter said. As the anniversary of publication in 1611 approached, they decided it was worth investigating.“We had no way of knowing whether it really was a 1611 Bible so we had to get it verified somehow,” he said.He and two other church members took it to a specialist, the Rev. David Smith at the Museum of the Book in London.Smith knew immediately what he was looking at, Procter said.“We put it on his table and he opened it and immediately he said, ‘Yes, this is a 1611 Bible,’” Procter remembered.Smith identified it thanks to a printing error – a place in the Gospel of Matthew that should say Jesus entered the Garden of Gethsemane and spoke to his disciples instead says that Judas, who betrayed Jesus to the Romans, entered the garden.That the St. Laurence Bible had that error, but not another one in the Book of Ruth, enabled Smith to pinpoint exactly when the book had been printed, Procter explained.“We realized that this is quite an important find,” he said, and last month the church quietly announced the discovery in the diocese newsletter.They hesitated before going public, Procter said.“It was one of those discoveries that we wondered if we should tell everybody or tell nobody,” he said. “And we thought that as it was the 400th anniversary, we should talk about it.”St. Laurence Church is far from the only one talking about the King James Bible this year – the Globe Theatre in London is planning a reading of the whole thing in the days before Easter, and a literary festival has already done one. Cambridge University has an exhibition, and the King James Bible Trust lists dozens of special events planned this year to mark the anniversary.The reason is simple, said Moira Goff of the British Library.The King James Bible is “so embedded in us that we can’t overstate the significance of it,” she said.It’s the source of dozens of phrases and concepts that have become part of the English language – “an eye for an eye,” “born again,” “eat, drink and be merry,” “God forbid.”Experts point out that the King James is based on at least two earlier major English translations, so its creators were editors as much as originators of these phrases, but it is the King James Bible that the great English writers knew, Goff said.“It’s passed entirely into the English language, into the thinking of English speakers around the world,” she said.Its influence has been greater than that of Shakespeare, she argued.“I think it’s permeated the language in ways that we can’t count as we can count Shakespeare, influencing people’s religious thinking, influencing people’s social thinking in a way that Shakespeare probably does now – but that’s a more recent development,” she said.“It’s the Bible that was read to people in church every week,” she explained. “The great literary figures from the early 17th century onwards, this was their daily reading. It passed into their works,” she said, citing John Milton and John Bunyan among others.But the King James Bible shouldn’t be reduced to merely its influence on writers, she said.“I think we have to be very careful in looking at the Bible only as a work of literature. It is also Holy Scripture and I think that makes it a different sort of book than the great works of literature,” she said. “It will be read by people who will possibly never read Shakespeare or Milton.”The St. Laurence discovery is very unusual, she said. Perhaps 200 copies of the 1611 printings of King James Bibles are known to exist, she estimated. No one knows how many were printed, she added, but she guessed that the number was probably around 1,000.Most of the surviving copies are in institutions, such as major libraries at universities, colleges and cathedrals in the United Kingdom and United States, she said.“Some of them may be in private collections,” she added, saying there is no way to know how many such copies there might be.The St. Laurence discovery is technically a fragment, not a Bible, since it is missing a few pages (including most of the first pages of Genesis, up to chapter 4, verse 17) and has been trimmed at the top to fit the wooden cover added in Victorian times.But it fits a pattern, she said. As King James Bibles got old and needed to be replaced, many were tucked away as church treasures, as seems to have happened with the St. Laurence Bible.The people of St. Laurence Church are now trying to raise money to build a special case so they can keep their Bible in use and on regular display.That would make the church more or less unique so far as Goff knows, although she speculated that there just might be a few village churches still using their 400-year-old Bibles.“It’s possible there are one or two churches that have gone on doing it and they just haven’t thought to say,” she said.“People are now beginning to realize the value of this particular edition. This is the 400th anniversary and there is a lot more emphasis on it,” she said.“They value it. They want to keep it and they want to use it.”Source: CNN News
Comments Published on September 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm Facebook Twitter Google+ Beat writer Trevor Hass and The Daily Orange sports staff has you covered for updates from Syracuse-Northwestern. The Orange (0-1) looks to knock off the 19th-ranked Wildcats (1-0) at 6 p.m. ET.
On Sunday night after the last conference championship game is decided, printers will work overtime, pools will form, money will be exchanged and inevitably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people will fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket.Many will choose based on the empirical evidence gathered by watching hundreds of college basketball games, scrutinizing every pick to its core. Others will color inside the lines or hover as close to the chalk as possible. And of course, some (and mind you, this is usually the most successful group) will pick according to mascot partiality and/ or uniform color.There’s no one correct way to fill out a bracket because the NCAA Tournament is so unpredictable, which makes it as exciting as it has become over the last few decades.There are some statistics that may help with “bracketology,” however, especially for first round games when many brackets are substantiated or torn to shreds (literally). Feel free to use them even though; in the end, they’ll likely help very little.Picking No. 1 seeds are a given. In the history of the NCAA Tournament, no No. 16 seed has usurped No. 1 (that’s a 100 percent success rate if you’re scoring at home). Predicting the first ever No. 16 over No. 1 upset is throwing away points (but if you’re in my pool, you can be sure this IS the year it will actually happen; in fact all the No. 1 seeds might lose).No. 2 seeds are usually pretty straightforward, as well. They are 80-4 in first round games (since 1985, when the field expanded to 64 teams). The last time a No. 2 lost in the first round, however, was in 2001, when Hampton took out Iowa State (Marcus Fizer’s career rapidly declined since that day, and how the heck did Iowa State earn a No. 2 seed in the first place?).Three and four seeds are, for the most part, sure things. Lately, a few 13 and 14 seeds have snuck into the second round (Bucknell, Weber St. and Bradley come to mind), but even those upsets are pretty few and far between.Then there’s the pesky 5-12 matchup. Most serious bracketologists wouldn’t dare turn in their bracket without a No. 12 over No. 5 upset. The reasoning behind the strategy is sound, as every year since 1988, except one, a No. 12 seed has taken down a No. 5.Interestingly enough No. 6 seeds have a better record against No. 11 than No. 5 vs. 12. But even still, turning in a finished bracket without a No. 11 over a No. 6 is probably foolish.From there, 7-10 and 8-9 matchups are often tossups. I suggest the “Ask Your Grandmother” technique for these games. Grandmothers are perfect for this kind of thing. They usually know nothing about basketball, sports or really anything else besides baking brownies, knitting sweaters and smelling kind of weird, which makes them eminently qualified for the job at hand.Ask her which mascot sounds friendlier. Show her pictures of the head coaches, and ask her which man has a nicer face (they really like that kind of stuff; trust me). Do anything so that they are the one’s making the ultimate decision, not you.Finally, voila: The first round is complete.Now, there are some very difficult decisions to make in the second round. The first, however, happens to be the most exciting part of the process: picking the one or two Cinderella(s) in your bracket.Everyone loves to see a Cinderella go deep into the tournament. Even more people love to be the ones who knew it would happen the whole time (though they didn’t really know, they just used the Grandmother Technique and are taking the credit for themselves).If a No. 12 seed can take out No. 5, why can’t they do the same against a No. 4 and dance into the Sweet 16? A No. 11 over a No. 3, why not? Remember George Mason?The numbers get pretty crazy past the first round in terms of statistics (how often No. X moves on vs. No. Y because there are so many possible matchups). But the No. 1 seed (assuming they have moved on) will always have to play the winner of the 8-9 game, which can be a really tricky pick.The stats are in the No. 1 seed’s favor since their record against No. 8 or No. 9 seeds is 92-13 or about 85 percent all time.Though, don’t be so quick to assume No. 1 is a sure thing this year.ESPN’s resident bracketologist Joe Lunardi has Ohio State possibly matched up with Missouri (a team that was ranked as high as eighth in the polls this year) or Tennessee, (a team with wins over Pittsburgh and Villanova during the regular season) in the second round.Is it so far fetched that either of these teams could take down the Buckeyes? Heavens no! (Though if Ohio State continues to shoot the three as well as it has lately, maybe it’s an easier pick than it seems).In either case, past the second round, there are no sure things. There is no UNC with five NBA ready players to blaze through the tournament field. It’s wide open this year.Some will go through several brackets, rethinking upsets, overanalyzing the 2-15 games, pestering grandma to no end and still won’t be happy with their finished product.Others will go with their first instinct; fill out the bracket once, and leave it as is without worrying too much about it.But almost all will be wrong about almost everything.