Hello list: ANOTHER HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ARVIL!!! Arvil, I hope you know just how much many of us appreciate your work, and especially your continued involvement in Hancock research. As I have told you, without your work I would probably still be out there roaming the Virginia hills looking for my Hancocks. Your the best! >From the Randolph-Macon college's website:  "The college's roots go back more than a century and a half to its founding by Methodists in 1830. Randolph-Macon's first campus was in Boydton, Virginia, near the border with North Carolina. The destruction of railways during the Civil War made the site inaccessible, and in 1868 the college moved to its present campus in Ashland, Virginia." If I may, I would like to present a few additional points on the matter of Robert and Margaret Hancock, which may be relevant to this case. Please know that my intentions are not to discredit any former/current Hancock researchers, whom I hold in high regard. Consider: 1). Margaret Hancock of Henrico and Chesterfield counties, Virginia, made a number of land transactions from 1747-1751, associating her with men named William, George, Joshua, and Thomas Hancock. And various land transactions were made in that same time period and in those same counties among Robert, William, George, and Joshua. In  1750 Margaret deeded property to Joshua (both parties of Chesterfield Co). And in 1751 Margaret and Joshua deeded property to George of Chest Co.; and to Robert of Chest. Co.  It appears she decided to give her land to her children rather than later devising the property to them by will. 2). This leads us to Robert Hancock, whose wife was named Margaret, given in Adventurers of Purse and Person. He was a son of Robert and Johan (Ligon) Hancock. Robert Hancock, son of Robert and Johan, was living in 1729. His family resided in Henrico County, Virginia. The time frame and location fit well. 3). According to such secondary sources as "The Johnstons of Salisbury, with a Brief Supplement Concerning the Hancock, Strother and Preston Families" (1897), by William Preston Johnston, the Bible (unfortunately) does not name Robert Hancock's wife, but lists his sons as Robert, Edward, William, George, Thomas, and Joshua. (Note: As shown above the names Robert, William, George and Joshua appear in the deed records). 4). We also have Mary Jones as the wife of George Hancock. Mary Jones was the daughter of Rice and Frances (Bowman) Jones. See in part, the Will of Mary's mother, Frances Jones, in WB 1 P 237 (24 May 1752), Chesterfield Co., Va.: "To daughter Mary Hancock, 1 negro…" This connects the family of Mary, George’s wife, to Chesterfield Co. and in the same time period as the deed transfers above. All the above evidence, I think, leads us to Robert and Margaret (unknown) Hancock as having been the probable parents of the children named in the Bible. But there are other reasons for believing this: 5).  If the ancestral lines of brothers, Robert (b 1711) and George (1724-1782), et al, did go through Augustine, son of William (b ca 1580), then Simon (1717-1791), whom (we think may have) had the Bible, and Robert & George (above) et al, would have been 3rd cousins once removed. If however, the line went instead through Simon, son of William (b ca 1580), then Simon (who had the Bible) and Robert & George (above) et al, would have been first cousins. One would think that the Bible info would have more likely come from the nearer relatives. 6). No attempt is being made here to discredit the whole of the Bible record, nor is that necessary. But with the recently discussed evidence of the land transactions I do think that maybe some of the Bible material was simply copied down wrong. If that info were copied from other Bibles, say from those owned by Simon’s father, and/or his grandfather, then it is possible that this portion was copied wrong. This does not discredit the whole of the Bible record. It seems wise to hold to the Bible record except where other compelling evidence seems to contradicts any of its parts. So, unless/until other parts are brought into question, the rest of the Bible record can be considered reliable. Note that the earliest info on William Hancock, (b. ca 1580), supposedly in the Bible, has long been substantiated. That is, a William Hancock is clearly shown as an adventurer in the Virginia Company. Also, if this new alignment is correct, it substantiates the portion of the Bible record in which the names the children of Robert Hancock are given. It's hard to imagine just how someone would have gotten that kind of info if it were not true. And apparently many older researchers believed firmly in the Bible’s existence and reliability. But, regardless of that, I know of no lineage society, which will accept a Bible record as legitimate without producing the Bible. Maybe we can somehow track it down, or else get more info from one of the earlier secondary sources which referred to it. 7). Another reason for making the change is the lack of Virginia county records relative to Augustine, son of William (b ca 1580), on down to George (1658-1682). One would think that there would be something more there to indicate their presence. While there may be some other records, which were lost by fire, etc., we just don't have them now...that I am aware of. We do, however, have some pretty good evidence supporting the possibility/likelihood that the people named in the (supposed) Bible were the children of Robert and Margaret Hancock. We would probably do well to concentrate our research along those lines, and see where it leads. I think we’re all seeking the truth. For me, until something more compelling arises, I will show the "new" alignment.   Let’s continue the research and the good discussions! Jim Hancock