Bingo History: Story of the Game Bingo

 The origins of contemporary bingo go back to 16th century Italy, where the lottery game Lo Giuoco del Lotto dItalia was introduced. The popular chance game was introduced to North America in the late 1920s by the name of Beano. A toy salesperson of New York was responsible for changing the name of the game into Bingo and to the increase of its popularity throughout the US.

In the late 18th century, the original Italian lotto game made its way to France. Historical evidence shows that a game called Le Lotto was popular among the French high society who used to play the game in parties and social gatherings.

Le Lotto used to be played with special cards that were divided into three rows and nine columns. Each of the three columns consists of 10 numbers, while each column had five random number and four blank spaces in it. https://gbcstories.com/  Each player had a different lotto card where he used to mark the number announced by the caller. The first player to cover one row won the game.

By the 19th century, the lotto game spread around Europe and started to serve as a didactic childrens game. In the 1850s, several educational lotto games had entered the German toys market. The lotto games purpose was to teach children how to spell words, how to multiply numbers, etc.

By 1920s, a similar version to the lotto game, known as beano was popular at county fairs throughout the US. In beano, the players placed beans on their cards to mark the called out number. The first player who completed a full row on his card, used to yell out Beano!, until one night in December 1929, when a New Yorker toys salesperson by the name of Edwin S. Lowe visited a country fair outside Jacksonville, Georgia.

On his way back to New York, Lowe had purchased beano equipment including dried beans, a rubber numbering stamp and cardboard. At his New York home, Lowe has been hosting friendly beano games. During one game, one excited winner who had managed to complete a full row stuttered out Bingo, instead of Beano. Listening to the excited stuttering girl, Edwin S. Lowe thoughts went away. Lowe decided to develop a new game that would be called Bingo.

While Lowe's Bingo game was making its first steps in the market, a Pennsylvanian priest asked Lowe to use the game for charity purpose. After a short tryout period, the priest had found out that the bingo game causes the churches to lose money. Since the variety of bingo cards was limited, each bingo game ended up in more than five winners.

In order to develop the game and to lower the probabilities of winning, Lowe approached Prof. Carl Leffler, a mathematician from Columbia University. Leffler was asked to create bigger variety of bingo cards that each of them will have unique combination of numbers. By 1930, Lowe had 6,000 bingo cards and Prof. Leffler went insane.

Since then, the popularity of the bingo game as a fundraiser continued to grow. In less than five years, about 10,000 weekly bingo games took place throughout North America. Lowe's company grew to employ several thousands of employees and to occupy more than 60 presses 24 hours a day.

Now, bingo is one of the most popular chance games in the world. It is played in churches, schools, local bingo halls and land based casinos in the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the world.

Genesis, Creation, and Big History

Is it possible for someone to accept science, evolution, and the Big Bang yet still believe in the truth of Genesis? If you pay attention to political debates in many local education systems where parents attack science based on religious views, you would probably say NO to my question. In this article, I intend to explain why there is no need for anyone to choose between Genesis and the story told by science. The problem is that people don't really understand Genesis, science, or both. The notion that the Bible and science contradict each other is false.

The movement to present the story of the universe in a historical narrative called Big History is growing in force in our country and Europe. No doubt discussions in local school boards will again encounter "conservative" opposition because of the central role of evolutionary science. There is a continuing need to make people aware of the correct relationship between biblical and scientific views of creation.

The point of this article is to demonstrate why there is no need to see conflict or contradiction between Genesis and science or Big History.

Opposition of Genesis and Science.

Let's begin by looking at why lots of people have the opinion that evolution and other forms of science are in opposition to Genesis and its account of creation. There are two reasons: (1) most of the public, including those who would describe themselves as well-versed on the Bible, do not understand Genesis; and (2) those same people also do not understand what the biblical position on creation is because they focus on Genesis is if it were the only place where creation is presented.

When speaking of creation in the Bible, most are referring to the first two chapters of Genesis which present side by side creation stories. These stories were taken as a single story for a long time, but are now recognized as the blending of two different traditions. Although many critics may insist there are contradictions in the two versions, they actually complement each other very well in main ideas - and that explains why they were mistaken as a single story for so long.

Rather than going into more detail on the first two chapters, let me draw your attention to the first eleven chapters of Genesis. These represent a series of creation accounts. The historical section of Genesis begins with the call of Abram (later Abraham) in chapter 12. The previous chapters have a special status and role that is unappreciated by those who want to literalize all of the Bible. In their book The Meaning of the Bible, Douglas Knight and Amy-Jill Levine refer to these chapters as taking place in a "primordial period, when life as we know it is still in the process of being established," and "is suspended in time or before time." (p. 197) The creation stories, Tower of Babel, and Noah story are meant to explain how things came to be as they are without presenting them as literal history. The Noah episode is actually a story of second creation after God destroys much of the original creation.

Another way of explaining these chapters that may offend some people is to recognize they are myths. A common reaction is to reject the word myth as equivalent to saying something is not true or didn't actually happen. That is completely wrong when we are talking of stories and rituals emerging from ancient religions. Myth is essentially poetic and symbolic rather than the literal kind of presentation seen in science or history. You don't base the truthfulness of myth on whether it actually happened. The question is whether we can sense its deep poetic and emotional truth for us today.

We of the western tradition have become accustomed to literalizing too many things since the Enlightenment and French Revolution, so that poetic modes of understanding are not appreciated because the "real" is thought to be only the "literal." There are important aspects of human experience that go beyond the literal. Music, play, ritual, and myth take us into a world without time - that is a distinguishing characteristic of their forms of truth. In that world we use symbols to express emotions that go beyond the rational and literal world of the everyday.

Therefore, the important question to ask of the Genesis creation accounts is not "did they happen in just that way?" But rather "what do they mean and are they true today?"

Recognizing the correct approach to the first two chapters of Genesis leads to the appreciation of the beautifully constructed and almost ritualistic description of a God forming a universe from chaos and making it good. God then put humanity in charge of the creation and it is because of humanity that problems begin to arise. Nevertheless, these accounts still see God standing behind the world and holding humanity accountable for what is done with the creation. This message has nothing to do with science or history - it has to do with the underlying meaning of the universe and of human life.

Continuing on to the second point about creation stories in the Bible, we need to recognize that the creation accounts in Genesis are not the only ones that make up the biblical view. There are a large number of psalms in many places in the Old Testament that present creation accounts. Bernhard Anderson's book on the Psalms lists three categories of creation accounts: (1) Creation of Israel in Psalms 66, 100, 111, 114, and 149; (2) Creation of the World in Psalms 8, 19, 95, 104, and 148; and (3) Creator and Ruler of History in Psalms 33, 103, 113, 117, 145, 146, and 147.

The psalms just listed show a diversity of approaches to creation, not all of them in agreement with the Genesis accounts. These are just as biblical as Genesis. Furthermore, scholars indicate that the Jewish belief in creation evolved initially from seeing God as the creator of a special people at the Exodus. Only gradually did the ancient Jews come to see God as the creator of an entire world who then put humanity in charge as his representative.

All of these biblical views are poetic in nature and are loaded with emotional and symbolic content emphasizing the importance of Israel and humanity in God's overall plan for the universe. Science and history can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or meaning and purpose for the world.

Comparing Big History and Genesis.

Now that we have talked about what the Bible really says about creation, let's take a look at how Big History with its scientific narrative should be compared to the biblical view. There are three important points: (1) Big History reveals a creative process rather than a finished creation; (2) Big History finds significance in the story but not in forces outside or behind the story; and (3) Big History endorses some very interesting parts of the Genesis story.

Most people think that Genesis and science present differing views of creation. That is not an accurate way to state the comparison. Genesis tells of acts of God that lead to a finished creation with humanity in charge. Science, which Big History presents in narrative form, describes an original event which resulted in a creative process that continues today.

The Big Bang was not creation. It was an explosion that brought into existence the universe we know - everything in it along with space and time. At the beginning it represented ultimate disorder at incredibly high temperature moving outward at remarkable speed. Motion and time point to the primacy of change in the universe that came about. Over billions of years, the original disorder developed complexity one step at a time through creative processes which science identifies and studies. The term evolution has been used to describe the creative process active in the entire universe as items of low complexity develop increasing complexity over the course of time.

It is the difference in approach to the outcome of creation that has generated much of the religious and political conflict over evolution. Some people want to impose one of the biblical views, the Genesis one that the world was a finished product from its origin. Science calls into question all views, religious and otherwise, that see an originally perfect beginning that degenerates rather than an ongoing creative process that leads to more and more complexity. Ongoing creation is clearly evident in the universe. It is not the role of God in creation that is being debated, but whether creation was entirely finished at the beginning. Science and history do not include God in their descriptions of events because there is no evidence for or against divine action. It is only the literalizing of one religious interpretation of how God must have created that is causing the conflict of opinions. God's role in creation and relationship to the universe are theological issues that neither science nor history can address as they do their proper work - which points us to the next item to consider.

Science and the Big History story of science look for understanding within the creative processes that are occurring, not outside, behind, or above them. This is illustrated in The First Three Minutes by Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg. He tells what science has been able to figure out about the physical processes that happened immediately after the Big Bang because science can go backward that far. The book is about description and understanding, not about meaning or purpose. In the epilogue, he steps aside from his role as scientist to ask the question of meaning - not because it is a question that science can answer but because ordinary readers would naturally ask questions that go beyond science. His conclusion was memorable. "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." (p. 154) That was not a scientific conclusion. Science cannot reach that kind of conclusion because it concerns a different order of truth found in philosophy and theology.

Weinberg's question about meaning is something addressed in Big History as it covers human efforts to reach more levels of truth than can be found in scientific description. History itself does not provide answers, but it tells of the efforts to provide answers through poetry, literature, religion, philosophy, and many other human attempts to fathom the nature of truth. The role of history is to turn those quests into a narrative as it turns science into a narrative. Why? Because story-making is a distinctively human form of trying to understand the world.

Turning to the story of creation which emerges from the Big History narrative of science, we find interesting parallels with the Genesis account that had previously seemed to violate common sense. God's first act of creation in Genesis is to speak light into existence. Day and night are divided from each other before the sun and moon are brought about. The poetic vision makes light and darkness of primary importance in understanding the finished creation rather than linking it only to our sun and moon.

Weinberg's description verifies this poetic insight in an unexpected way. The original explosion brought nuclear particles into existence, among them photons. This means "the universe was filled with light." (p. 6) As particles flew apart at enormous speed, darkness emerged in the separation and, after billions of years, stars exploded into existence as concentrations of light which began to gather planets around themselves. Indeed, light existed before the sun or any star.

Another way in which Big History agrees with the Genesis point of view is through the emphasis on humanity. The sixth threshold identified by Big History is the beginning of our species and from that point we are at the center of the story. As attention focuses on what we know of earth and the emergence of human cultures, the story emphasizes the importance of humanity as does Genesis. The biblical view sees humanity as God's agent or steward for the earth, given rights and responsibilities. Big History presents the changes to the planet through human activity and emerging challenges for current and future human decisions about the way we impact the planet. By looking at a larger picture than local, regional, or national cultures, Big History can assist humanity in recognizing and addressing the many issues facing us now and in the near future. Insights from Big History can actually assist people in carrying out their religiously motivated role of stewardship of creation.

Conclusions.

What are the results of our discussion? First, the poetic and mythical nature of biblical accounts is a different approach to truth than is taken by science or history. When we recognize that Genesis was never intended to be history or science, we see no opposition of views. In fact, anyone can value biblical, historical, and scientific accounts without having to choose one over the other. Life as we know it is complex so that multiple perspectives are available and true in their own way without necessarily making other perspectives false.

Another conclusion is the importance of recognizing that literal truth is not always the best understanding of something. People who learn about religion, literature, history, and science in depth should learn that each of those areas approach truth differently without forcing us to choose one over the other. There is no necessity to insist on just one kind of truth in opposition to the others. We must realize that poetic and symbolic accounts should not be literalized into scientific or historic forms of truth. Really appreciating the wonderful and challenging universe and planet we experience means learning to understand and value how multi-dimensional truth can be.

The Storied History Of Palm Springs California

 Did you know that within the storied history of Palm Springs, California one of the most interesting mysteries is where the actual name comes from? Historians debate quite frequently about the reason that the city has this name, but most will agree that the complete history of the town is extremely diverse and unique.

Because it is set in the Coachella Valley, the storied history of Palm Springs, California begins hundreds of years prior to its incorporation in 1938. Roughly 500 years earlier, the Cahuilla Indians had been living in the valley and thriving on the many wild animals and ample supplies of water and arable land. By the middle of the 1800s, the Spaniards had arrived, and by the turn of the century, there were less than 100 natives left in the Palm Springs region.

It was in the early 1900s that the modern part of the storied history of Palm Springs, California begins. It was then that the first of the Hollywood "stars" began to need a place to escape from the heat and crowding of Los Angeles. They traveled to many parts of the area, and it was when they ran across Palm Springs in the northern region of the Coachella Valley that they knew they had found their vacation paradise.

Celebrities such as Frank Sinatra, Lucille Ball, and Clark Gable traveled to the area to begin enjoying the resort-like accommodations becoming so widely available. Again, the storied history of Palm Springs, California took another turn during the 1950s because post World War II generations also began looking for permanent housing away from the crowded city conditions. It was at this time that more building and relocation to the area began. What is so interesting about this part of the storied history of Palm Springs, California is that more and more retirees began giving their attention to the area.

This was due the ever-increasing number of golf courses and communities becoming available. By the 1970s, the area had started to really swell with tourist traffic and retirement development. Today there are more than 140 courses in the greater Palm Springs area, but there are also gated communities entirely dedicated to golf. People can live right alongside a fairway in upscale residences that are meant to be year-round homes but which some may use only as part-time residences during winter months.

The main industry in Palm Springs is now tourism, and this is supported by the many shopping, retail, and recreational options available. The city is home to many festivals, including a famous annual film festival. It has an impressive Art Museum, and is also the location of an Indian operated casino - the Spa Resort Hotel and Casino. There are now water parks and all kinds of resorts to accommodate the travelers. It has grown from a place where bands of Native Americans once hunted and lived peacefully to a place where tens of thousands of travelers come to enjoy the well-preserved beauty and the many world-class offerings within the city itself.