The great FIFA lie: that the Chinese invented soccer (football)

(Note: After reading this you may like to read The history of expansion of football codes)

Quote: FIFA says its historians have proof that the game -- then called cuju or "kickball" -- originated in China some 2,000 years ago. It was even played for emperors.

Read FIFA's story here and here. This particular story apparently says that it is an "historical fact" that the Chinese invented the game of soccer.

Whooah, what a lie from the apparent victors in world football at this point in history. We all know that the winners like to rewrite history, but the Chinese did not invent soccer. This is a gross lie by FIFA designed to give them market presence in China, so that they can continue their cultural and economic conquest of the world.

Many, many ancient societies have their own versions of ball games and football games. It is important to examine the historical facts, Read my previous post on the development of football codes to understand the accurate historical story.

Some tribes in the Americas had a game where two opposing tribes played in a very large area with a ball. The object of the game was to make the opponent drop the ball on the ground. The captain of the losing team would have his heart cut out. This was a kind of "friendly" war to minimise the number of deaths.


Australian Aboriginal peoples in the South East of Australia played a game called Marn Grook, which was a football game played with a possum skin. The game of Marn Grook is most likely a lot older than the Chinese game of Cuju.


In south east Asia in the countries of Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos, Philippines and Indonesia, a game called Sepak takraw is played, it is a game descended from Cuju, but it is not soccer.

The Mesoamericans had their own ballgame, using rubber balls.


The Choctaw people in North America has a stick ball game with sometimes as few as 20 players but also up to 300 players. Although they used sticks, the object was to score a goal, much like mob football.

There is also the Roman game of Harpastum, which was related to the Greek game of Paganica. Harpastum apparently was similar in appearance to Rugby.

It is true that the Chinese game of Cuju, did sometimes involve kicking the ball "through an opening, measuring only 30-40cm in width, into a small net fixed onto long bamboo canes". But other variations of the game also involved kicking the ball at a post in the middle of the field.

Proto forms of football and other various ball games existed in many parts of the ancient world. As inventions go, humans often independently come up other with similar ideas in completely isolated locations. The Chinese did not invent Soccer (football) anymore than the Greeks invented running.

The true ancestor of Soccer is actually the old English game of Mob Football, Mob football had very few rules. As a result, by the time of the 19th century there were very many variations of the rules of football. Football was played by boys in public schools across southern England. Each of the schools had separate rules. This did not matter when they only played amongst themselves. It only became an issue when the various schools wanted to play against each other. They were then forced to agree on a set of rules before a game began. Two of the most famous schools to come up with their own sets of rules were Rugby and Eton. The game of Rugby is essentially descended from the Rugby School and the game of Soccer from the Eton School. Nevertheless there was a period of 40 years when various schools played against each other that the rules of football were up for debate. These 40 years were the smelting fire that turned mob football into the two games of Rugby and Soccer, with the final split happening on December 8th, 1863.

It is very clear that Soccer was invented by the English and is a game descended from English mob football. While many ancient games may bear resemblance to modern forms of football, this does not mean that they are the "invention" of modern forms of football. The Chinese invented their own game 2000 years ago, that while it has some very vague similarities to modern Soccer, had no influence on the invention of the game what so ever. FIFA have simply tried to rewrite history for their own purposes.

A history of the development of football codes from proto football (the Rugby and Soccer split)

An early Australian Rules Football game in 1879.

I find the history of football interesting, no less because Australia is poised for the great football wars. What many people do not realise is that the sport we call "footy" in most of Australia is actually older than soccer. It always helps to have an understanding of history before making judgements in these issues. Recently I read a blog about soccer by an American who claimed that Americans didn't like soccer because it is an "ethnic sport" (i.e Mexicans). There have been similar arguments about soccer in Australia in recent decades.

To understand the history of all football codes better, it helps to understand the concept of "proto-football." Much like an ancestral language such as Proto Indo-European, there was a proto form of football that no longer exists today, and is the ancestor of all modern football codes. In fact there were proto football games in many cultures around the world, just as there were proto versions of bat and ball games. However it is the English proto-football that all modern codes are descended from. No other versions were ever formalised in other countries.

Proto-football was a game with sometimes a round ball and sometimes an oval ball. The basic concept was to move the ball to one end of the field. Sometimes this was done with only feet and sometimes with hands too. There were not a lot more rules than this. Modern sports began to be formalised within the 19th century. There are perhaps many reasons for this, which I have not researched closely, but emancipation is probably a big one.


Rugby School, 1859.

Rugby Union is actually the oldest of the formalised codes. Perhaps its history could be traced to 1823, when during a game of proto-football William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it. This story has been disputed though. In 1839, the world's first formal football club of any kind was founded, the Barnes Club in London, it was a Rugby club. Then in 1845 the rules of Rugby were formalised. These rules were accepted by some football teams and not by others. Also in the 1820s, boys at the Eton school made a rule that the ball should not be touched with the hands, which could be seen as the embryonic development of soccer. At that stage there were still many varieties of football played and teams often had to agree on the rules before the game began.

I have mentioned in a previous post some of the story behind the development of Australian Rules Football. There are perhaps many factors involved in the birth of Australian football, but it was definitely a descendant of proto-football. There was even a proto-football game called Marn Grook played by Australian Aboriginal people with a possum skin, which was a foundational influence in the game. Considering that the Australian Aboriginal peoples are the most ancient peoples on earth, proto-football could possibly have existed for millenia.

Australian Football Rules were codified in 1859 by Tom Wills and the Melbourne Football Club. Geelong had their own rules which did not require the ball to be bounced, but by 1866 they accepted the Melbourne rules. The Melbourne Club was founded on May 14th 1859 and the Geelong Club shortly after on July 18th, 1859. Australia being so far from the rest of the world, and transport being what it was, Australian football began to develop on its own. The game was played a little in South Africa and Scotland circa 1900. In 1900 there were 100 clubs in New Zealand. New Zealand was a founding member of the Australasian Football Council. (See- Australian Rules - from Colonial past-time to World Footy.) The biggest reason why soccer did not take off in Australia is that it was only birthed as a sport long after Australia was formed. This is different from cricket, which was well established before Australia was ever settled by the English.

Soccer, or "Association Football" was not codified until 1863. There were many football clubs in England at the time who had to agree on the rules of the game before it started. Some played a game more similar to Rugby, some more similar to Soccer. An association of clubs came up with the rules for the game that is soccer or that much of the world call football. It is important to understand that even though this code is considered "the world game" it has no stronger claim on the name football than any of the other codes. It's birth came in the same time period as Rugby and Australian Rules Football (indeed a little later). Soccer is a derivative of the word association, from Football Association.

During the codification of rules for the Football Association there was a dispute at the final meeting on December 1st 1863. The initial treasurer for the FA withdrew the club of Blackheath over two important rules that had been withdrawn. These two rules were 1) being able to carry the ball in the hands or under the arm and 2) being allowed to kick, trip, tackle and knock a player down (hacking). These are the fundamental differences between Rugby and Soccer. F.W.Campbell the treasurer of Blackheath was recorded to say, "hacking is an essential element of the 'football' game that this club (Blackheath) wants to play. To eliminate hacking would "do away with all the courage and pluck from the game, and I will be bound over to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice". These differences began in the 1820s and were still being sorted out in the 1860s. The game of soccer as we know it today did not exist before 1863. This dispute lead other Rugby clubs to break from the Football Association and to form the Rubgy Union in 1871.

Australian Rules Football and Gaelic Football have an interesting relationship. There are arguments that each sport was influenced by the other. What ever the case, the Gaelic Athletic Association codified their game in 1887. Rugby and Soccer had been played in Ireland during the 1860s and 1870s and were both influential in the game of Gaelic Football. Hurling probably also has some influence on the game and controversially also Australian Football.

American Football diverged from Rugby and no other sport. Rugby was played in both America and Canada in the second half of the 1800s, but with the development of their own versions of Football, Rugby faded in both of those countries and is only beginning to increase in popularity now. American Football can trace its history back to the first recorded game in 1892. The American Professional Football Association was not formed until 1920.

Rugby League split from Rugby Union in 1895 over a dispute regarding payments. Northern Rugby teams in England were mostly made up of coal miners who could not afford to take time off work to play without compensation. The southern clubs believed that Rugby should remain an amateur sport and disagreed. This led to the formation of the Northern Rugby Union. The rules gradually changed over the next 12 years. In 1907 the rules were codified separately from Rugby Union and in 1922 the name of the NRFU was changed to the Rugby League.

Soccer may be the most popular version in the world, but it is not the oldest form of the game. Rugby has a stronger claim than soccer to being the older game. Soccer does not have an exclusive claim on the word football. It would in many ways be more accurate to use the word "football" as an umbrella term for the 7 codes of the game (Rugby Union, Australian Rules, Soccer, Gaelic Football, American Football, Rugby League and Canadian Football). Each of the seven codes have terms to refer to themselves. I resent the marketing approach of Soccer in Australia, that they claim to be the true version of Football, and that they have a greater claim on the name. This is historically, grossly inaccurate. Australian Rules Football or Footy is an older game than Soccer and Soccer did not even exist before 1863, when it split with the then dominant version of the game, Rugby.

Footnotes:
Further evidence that Aussie Rules is the reconciliation code of football.

A history of Rugby, demonstrates that proto versions of football from around the world are common ancestors of both Soccer and Rugby. Soccer does not have an exclusive claim on this.

Australian Rules - from Colonial past-time to World Footy- www.worldfootynews.com

Wikipedia articles were consulted on the history of all football codes.
______________________________________

Appendix: Codification of major world sports:

1571: Tennis. The game was popular in both England and France and dates back to Norman times. Modern rules have diverged from this earlier game, which was clearly none the less Tennis. Historians now refer to the historic game as "Real Tennis." The first modern tennis club was formed in 1872 in England.
Golf- dates back to the 1100s, but the laws were codified in 1754 by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrew's in Scotland.

1716: Curling- popular in the 1500s. The first club, Kilsyth Curling Club in Scotland constituted the laws in 1716.

1728: Cricket- Articles of Agreement, 1728. Laws of cricket codified, 1744. Amendment of Laws (LBW and middle stump added), 1774. Cricket was popular from the 1600s onwards.

1845: Rugby

1845: Knickerbocker Baseball rules. The Knickerbocker club was founded on September 23, 1845. The 20 original rules were written down at the same time. Earlier claims to baseball games played are made before this date, such as a June 4, 1838 game in Beechville, Ontario, but this can not be deemed to have been played to the same rules. A game was played on September 11, 1845 in the New York area, and it is more possible that it was played to similar rules to the Knickerbocker club. The first official game after the Knickerbocker club was formed was on October 6, 1845. First professional club (Cincinatti Red Stockings), 1869. National Association, 1871. National League, 1876.

1848: Lawn Bowls- this would have been a lot earlier. It was already popular in the 1300s, but was banned by the King in the fear that it would detract from Archery practice, needed for battle. The law remained a long time after gunpowder.
Croquet- 1868 (also popular from the 1300s)

1849: Field Hockey- Blackheath, England.

1859: Australian Rules Football (AFL, Footy).

1863: Association Football (Soccer), England.

1871: Rugby Union.

1877: Ice Hockey- the origins of Ice Hockey are hotly disputed as it could have originated from many European versions of the game. In fact a Society for International Hockey Research has been founded to come up with a definitive historical answer to this question. It developed throughout the 1800s in Canada and the first official club was formed in 1877 at Mc Gill University in Montreal, Canada, they are credited with codifying the laws.

1884: Hurling- Modern Laws by the Gaelic Athletic Association in 1884. Evidence of the game dates back to 400 AD.

1887: Gaelic Football

1907: Rugby League- Yorkshire, England.

1920: American Football.

1946: Basketball- the game was deliberately invented in 1891. The Basketball Association of America was established in 1946. Significantly however, dribbling was only introduced in the 1950s, when the modern ball was introduced. Originally a soccer ball had been used.

1961: Canadian Football- first club University College, University of Toronto.

1984: International Rules Football. (A hybrid between Gaelic and Australian rules for the purpose of matches between Australia and Ireland.)

Etymology of the months of the year

As a bit of a footnote to my thoughts on the names of the days of the week, the months of the year are named:

January- after the Roman god Ianuarius, the god of the doorway, because January is the door to the year.
February- from the Latin, Februum, named after the Roman purification festival Februa, held on the 15th of the month.
March- named after the Roman god of war Martius (Mars). So Mars gets a month and a day.
April- from the Latin Aprilis, which most likely means "opening", referring to the opening of buds in Spring.
May- named after the Greek goddess of fertility, Maia.
June- named after the Roman goddess of marriage, Juno.
July- named after Julius Caesar, although the name Julius comes from the Roman goddess Julus (Venus). Venus also has a month and a day (Friday).
August- named after Caesar Augustus. Augustus means "majestic", "increaser", "venerable."

It is worth noting that July used to be called "Quintilis" (fifth month) and August was "Sextilis" (sixth month). January and February were added later than the other months. There were originally 10 months when the Roman empire first started a calendar, with a monthless Winter period of approximately 61 days. Read more about the Roman calendar.

September- from the Latin "septem" meaning seven; i.e the seventh month.
October- from the Latin "octo" meaning eight.
November- from the Latin "novem" meaning nine.
December- from the Latin "decem" meaning ten.

So five of the months of the year are named for Roman gods, the other seven not. All months of the year in English and in Russian are borrowed from Latin. So it could be argued that the meaning is not carried forward the same way as days of the week are. A borrowing does not carry the same meanings as a "proto" (proto means first, pro means before) word does.

Etymology of the days of the week

A linguist's brain is always dissecting language. I find that I learn language better when I know the root meaning of a word. It is often a fun game to then learn all of the other words connected to a root meaning, or a word tree, so to speak. I have a bit of a personal theory that words carry on the psyche of a culture and previous generations as we pass them on to the next. It's a hard theory to prove and I have other things to work towards that are more important such as saving endangered languages.
I did get to thinking about the days of the week. It is pretty easy for an English speaker to see that Sunday is named after the sun and Monday is named after the moon. Thursday is named after Thor (Norse god) and Saturday after Saturn. But what are the other days named after?
I did a bit of a search and discovered that all of the days of the week are named after Germanic, Norse or Roman gods.

Sunday: named after the Germanic sun goddess "Sunne."
Monday: named after the Germanic moon god "Mani" (old English "Mona").
Tuesday: named after the Norse god Tyr (or Mars) became Twis in old English.
Wednesday: named after the Germanic god Woden or Norse god Odin, who is Mercury.
Thursday: named after the Germanic god, or Norse god Thor, who is Jupiter.
Friday: from the old English Frige meaning Venus.
Saturday: from the old English Saetern or Saturn.

While it is true that all of the days of the week are named for bodies in the heavens, they were also named for pagan gods. The concept of a heavenly body and a god were one and the same to the ancient peoples who gave the names. This pattern of naming the days is the most common through out all languages of the world. The pattern is broken in cultures that experienced a spiritual awakening in ancient times.

Russian is a language that does not name the days of the week for pagan gods. Russian names the days of the week largely based upon the numbering system.

(Sunday) Воскресенье, (Voskreseniye) -Meaning resurrection, referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
(Monday) Понедельник, (Ponedelnik)- All other Slavic languages call Sunday "Nedelya", literally no business or no work. Sunday is the day of no work. Ponedelnik is the day after no work. Interestingly, Russian is the only Slavic language to use the word resurrection to refer to Sunday. Russian uses the Slavic word for Sunday, "nedelya" to refer to "week."
(Tuesday) Вторник, (Vtornik)- literally, the second (day).
(Wednesday) Среда, (Sreda)- literally, the middle. This however is inconsistent with Tuesday being numbered second.
(Thursday) Четверг, (Chetverg)- literally, the fourth (day).
(Friday) Пятница, (Pyatnitsa)- literally, the fifth (day).
(Saturday) Суббота (Subbota)- literally, the Sabbath,

The Russian language really came into birth after 800 AD and was still a very young language by the time of official Christianisation in 988 AD. So any usage of Old Slavic pagan names for days of the week would have been quite obvious to early Russian Christians. I have tried to research on the internet Old Slavic names for days of the week and have been unsuccessful at turning anything up. Early Russian Christians would have had a strong desire to change the naming system fo days of the week.

There are two basic systems for naming days of the week- numbering or pagan gods. There are some religious variations, work based variations and legal based variations in various languages. There is no system that uses a "world" religious name for every day of the week. The Irish language uses Lord's Day for Sunday, First fast for Wednesday, Day between fasts for Thursday and Fast for Friday. It maintains the planets/ pagan gods for the remaining days.

Many Muslim countries have changed their languages throughout history to a numbering system (this is a supposition of mine, I would have to check up each respective proto language to confirm this), while often referring to Friday as a meeting or gathering day.

My question is, how important is is that English days (and many other languages) are named after pagan gods? It could be argued that it is not important, because language changes and people do not think of pagan gods when naming days of the week. But is this really true? On a latent level many of us know that the days are named for pagan gods. Of course, western societies by and large are not majority Christian any more, so there would be no desire to change the system for a majority of people.

The Quakers were a deep thinking people and decided to drop the pagan system and change to a numbered system- Lord's Day, second day, third day etc. The Hebrew days of the week were first day, second day, so on and Sabbath for the seventh day. One day, when there is a great spiritual awakening in the nations of the west again (which I theologically believe there will be), I wonder if the names of the days of the week will be changed accordingly.

End of the world just round the corner?

Well I think I have painstakingly explained previously why I think the end of the world is a long way off. But there has been some interesting news this week to make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. I was reading theage.com.au and stumbled on this article "World's largest experiment set to go off with a big bang."
It is about the world's largest particle accelerator underground in Switzerland. The experiment is scheduled for July, when two atoms are set to collide at a speed just short of light. The temperature created will be 100 000 times hotter than the centre of the sun. (That's a figure that is completely academic to me.) It is hoped that the experiment will create matter and anti-matter previously unobserved. This of course is quite fascinating. It is hoped that analysis of the new matter created will give clues about the big bang.
There are some environmentalists from Hawaii (not physicists) who are afraid that the experiment will create a black hole that will suck up all life on the planet. They have attempted to legally stop the experiment from going ahead. I tend to think that their fears are completely unfounded.

But you never know, perhaps they are on to something along with the cult that just came out of the cave in European Russia. Perhaps if the Hawaiian environmentalists ask really nicely the Russians will let them join their cult.

Read here for some opinions from the public.

Kingdom of Comfort- Delirious? (review)

I'm not gonna take the time to review this entire record for you, except to say, it's grrrrreat mate. Seems I got it earlier than most, and for this I am happy, even if I can hardly brag to anyone about it from deep inside Siberia.

First of all, you can completely skip my attempt at a review and head straight to the Delirious? website and listen to it there, in entirety. This album is seriously growing on me very quickly. One of the things I look for in a new Delirious record is a song that I can worship God too. At first they appear to be almost missing. But I love the way that this band does not stick to any formulas at all. They never try to write a worship song per se, but the depth of love of God just overflows in every song, and it is impossible not to worship God in every song.

This album has a lot of depth to it. The band had spent a lot of time in India and Cambodia, not seeking inspiration as such, but simply to share their music there with people as an act of generosity. Their experiences obviously rattled them and have wrought a different kind of Delirious?, a Delirious that has obviously danced with cynicism and despair and yet the Holy Spirit has won out in their hearts. Lyrics such as: "I thought I believed but I just turn away from these souls living in this hell today" are then followed up with "Your love, finds a way to break through this love finds a way to kiss you" to prove that there is always hope when Jesus' love is part of the equation. The title track is a healthy reminder to not be consumed by the consumer age: "Save me, save me from the kingdom of comfort where I am king from my unhealthy lust of material things."

Musically, there is not a huge departure from previous records, but a welcome progression into new strong melodies, riffs and choruses. The biggest change is that the choruses are packed full of harmonies, and the strength shines through, only to improve on previous performances.

If you're a big fan and you want to put Kingdom of Comfort on your ipod now, then you will need a US credit card. I bought it from Amazon for $8.99. It will be on iTunes Canada on April 22nd. I have no idea when it will be available in Australia. Apparently I will miss out on a 32 page booklet packed with stories. That's a little disappointing, but hey, I got it early and I'm doing a little for the planet along the way.

The record has 12 tracks, but there are some bonus tracks for free download on the band's website in the "Living Room." Personally, I find the bonus song "Hallelujah" as strong if not stronger than some songs that made the cut. I hope they do it, in concert, and I hope I get the chance to see them play again. They are playing Australia now. There are some dates in North America in July, August and November, and a big gap in between. Here's hoping some of that gap in between will be in western Canada in August or September.

Rock on.

When was the world created?

The Jews believe that the world was created on March 29th, 3760 B.C. Were they even close?

Chronicles of the Kings- Lynn Austin

My wife has convinced me to read some of the books she has been reading. Normally I don't read a lot of novels from the Christian book market. I usually find them too tame. The truth is that the evangelical market can be easily offended and therefore the content often strays from the depths of reality.
Anyway, the books that were put into my hand were a series called "Chronicles of the Kings." The author, Lynn Austin has chosen to portray the life of King Hezekiah in fiction. Hezekiah was one of the few kings in the history of Judah to truly honour God and his law. As far as the novels have been concerned (I am reading the third book in a five part series), the over all enjoyment factor for a good read has been reasonable. I guess I would give them a score of 7/10. A couple of things have annoyed me though. The prophets seem rather weak. When Micah came to Hezekiah at the start of his reign he "prophesied" on his academic knowledge of the Torah, rather than by a burning of the Holy Spirit inside of him. This seems to all to easily fit in with an evangelical stream that would rather have the Father, Son and Holy Book, rather than the Holy Spirit. So many evangelicals seem to be afraid of the power of the Holy Spirit, and it certainly comes through in Lynn Austin's books. Secondly, there is no doubting that these books are written for women, as much of the Christian fiction market is (perhaps why it is seen as impotent by people like me). There are far too many times when the heroine of the story dreams of her love for her man, and of being held in his arms etc. Now this is all very good when these books are mostly read by women, but when is someone going to have the courage to write something a little more palatable for both genders?
Aside from the fictionalisation of the story (which I will not spoil for you) one of Lynn Austin's obvious goals was to get people to pick up their bible's and read the stories of the kings in a new light. This is something I am greatly appreciative to her for. She has put faces on the characters of the bible. This is necessary because the biblical stories are set so far in the past and in such different cultures, that it is often difficult to relate to them. It certainly encouraged me to read the stories of the kings again to get a better context for the story I was reading in a novel.
Lynn Austin manages to make the Assyrians seem rather mean, but not as ghastly as a writer like John Grisham or Steven Lawhead would have the guts to do. But then those writers (Christians as they are) have been given the cold shoulder by much of the evangelical world for publishing in the secular market. It does give the reader a better impression of why Jonah wanted to disobey God when he was called to prophesy to Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrians.
So, I read the books of 1st and 2nd Kings. I decided to skip Samuel on this occasion, as I know the stories of King David better. A few things stood out to me as I read these books. (I calculated that they would be about 250 pages in normal paper back spacing, but the bible pages are rather thin with tiny type on them.) Firstly, Solomon was at once the biggest success and biggest failure that Israel ever had. It would be fair to say that God has accommodated our mistakes many times in his plans. Solomon is a big example of God doing this.
Let me digress. God never intended for sin to be in the world. But he lovingly decided to give us free choice. When sin entered the garden of Eden, God decided to come up with a salvation plan. Very early on God promised he would send a Saviour, who was yet unnamed. Later on, after many more human mistakes God let the Israelites know that it was his preference for them to not have a king like the other nations, because he wanted to be their King. Yet God showed grace to the Israelites and allowed them to have a king, even though it would be their down fall in the end.
Saul may have been Israel's first king, but David was God's choice for Israel's king. David was a man after God's own heart, yet even he had a lot to learn about God's will. Israel prospered under David. Israel began to fulfil its purpose as a light among the nations. Under Solomon, Israel prospered beyond imagination. Gold was so plentiful in his kingdom, that silver was considered worthless. He kingdom stretched up to the Euphrates river, just as God had promised Abraham. Kings and queens from all over the known world came to Solomon to seek his wisdom and hear where his wealth had come from. Israel was the most prosperous nation in the world under King Solomon.
But Solomon had a fateful flaw. He took on foreign wives. In fact the Torah already gave instructions that a king should not have many wives. It seems that Solomon did not know the law well enough. As Solomon took on 700 wives, many of them to form alliances with other nations, they also brought their foreign demigods. Solomon was tempted into worship of gods other than the true Creator God Yahweh. As he was tempted, he led his nation into the same sins. It was as a direct result of Solomon's sin of idol worship that Israel was split under his son Rehaboam. Rehaboam remained the king of Judah, and Jeroboam (not in the line of King David) became the king of Israel.
So many of the kings of Israel and Judah worshipped idols because Solomon led them into sin. So much of the old testament story is about Israel's struggle with temptation and God's desire for them to be a light to the world. Imagine if Solomon had remained a godly man and had not taken on extra wives. Imagine if his son had been a godly man too. It would stand to reason that a godly son would have inherited his kingdom and not only maintained it, but would have seen it prosper even more. The fame of Israel would have spread even further through out the world. Israel would truly have been a light to the nations. A succession of godly kings that did not take on idol worshipping wives would have made for a very different history.

The second thing that stood out to me, was that God promised that there would also be a son of David sitting on the throne of Judah. God promised that he would reserve a remnant for himself in the nation of Judah for "the sake of David." David is a "type" or a foreshadow of the Messiah Jesus. When God promised that he would do this "for the sake of David" he was in many ways saying he would do this for the sake of his Son, the coming Messiah.
When Jesus was born, he was the last King in the line of David to be born. He inherited the "throne" of Judah. This was declared to the world as he hung dying on the cross under the sign "King of the Jews" (Jew, being a derivative of Judah). Since Jesus rose from the dead, and lives for evermore, he continues to be the King of Judah, of the new spiritual Israel. No nation of Israel or Judah can exist without God's king in place.
Many believed that Israel being established in 1948 was a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecies that the Jews would return to Judah. But it would pay to read the return to Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra as a fulfillment of these prophecies. The modern nation of Israel does not pay any attention to the King in the line of David, therefore they are not the biblical nation of Judah. They are not some special fulfillment of prophecy. They need a saviour just like the rest of us, they need to call on King Jesus.
Reading 1st and 2nd Kings also helped me realise that I have both an earthly and a heavenly King in Jesus. He will return to establish his reign on earth some day. It is clear though, that Israel failed in being the light to the nations that God desired. The nation of Judah was destroyed in AD 70. His plan now is for the spiritual nation of Israel with Jesus as King to be his Light to the nations. But I do not buy into some notion in the middle east having a special part to play in that plan.

iPod touch- no pairing record (welcome confused iPod users)

I have been quite surprised by the number of people who have come to my blog in the last few days because of the problem they have been having with their iPod. There are LOTS of people out there with the same problem. I think it may be a problem with software update 1.1.3. If you are able to get it working and update to 1.1.4 then the problem should hopefully go away. Read the post below for the story. If my experience does not help you, call the technical assistance line and make sure they help you, don't let them get away with anything. (Number in post below).

I have a new gripe now. I can only charge the iPod touch through iTunes on my computer. I have a separate usb hub and can not charge it there. That does not make logical sense to me. If electricity is all that is needed to charge then it should work through the usb hub overnight when the computer is off. I don't want to have spend extra money to buy a special charger just so I can use my iPod on a trip when I don't want to take my computer. I'm kind of annoyed now. Does anyone have any advice on this matter.

Since you have arrived at my blog, please feel free to look around. There may be some other topics that interest you. Just have a look at the labels in the side column. Good luck with your iPod. You'll get it working eventually.

iPod touch- no pairing record

When I knew a friend was going to the States, I decided I would buy a new iPod. For the last two years I have had a 512mb shuffle. Some people I know have even made fun of me, but I am secure in my iDentity. I have wanted an iPod for a long time. It's my birthday this month. My wife kindly let me have the iPod touch as an early birthday present. I refrained from getting the iPhone for a number of reasons, not the least that the ongoing expense would currently be quite high. I guess I will upgrade to an iPhone within a couple of years.

The retail price in the States was $299. Plus tax it was $307. I forked out 7500 rubles (conversion based on date of internet purchase) which worked out to be $339 AUD, a $60 saving on the Australian retail price of $399.

My friend arrived yesterday and I picked up the package this morning. The presentation was classy.

The box was small and shiny. Although, I would rather have had U2 on the front than John Lennon. He's never gettin' in to my iTunes.

I calmly walked home and even picked up some groceries on the way.

Out it came from the box.

Still shiny, still happy.


It's really thin too- 8mm x 61mm x 110mm.

Next came the exciting moment, plugging the usb cable into the computer. iTunes did not open by itself. I waited a while. I opened iTunes manually. "iTunes is unable to connect the iPod "iPOd" because the pairing record is missing." Arrrrgh!! What could be wrong. I wasn't happy. I disconnected and tried again. Still the "pairing record" was missing. I was beginning to freak out. $340 and all I had was a shiny looking (albeit wafer thin) brick. After four tries I was dismayed and ringing friends. I found out I could call Apple Customer Service (US) 1800 MYAPPLE. When I did get through, I was told that I could call technical support when they open, but was shown very little sympathy. The shine was really beginning to wear off.

Some forums spoke of other people having the same problem. I stumbled upon one person saying that it worked for them on the sixth try. Another person said to try a different usb port. I tried the all faithful restart on the computer. My wife sat down to have a go, I suggested trying a different port, and thankfully it worked that time. I still think I will ring Apple Technical support. If you have found my blog and you want to speak with them their number is (US) 1800 275 2273. If you are calling outside the US, use your international code first. I called on Skype and it was still a free call.

I intend to call them now, and ask them what the situation is......

As far as the iPod is concerned, I am still very happy. Unfortunately, my internet provider has me set up on VPN. I will have to install Leopard before I can do VPN sharing and be able to use my iPod online. It will still work in wireless cafes though.

..... I'm on hold right now, while the consultant checks with the "product specialist".

....."It was a problem with the Apple ID"

....."excuse me, I don't understand, could you explain that to me"

....."I will transfer you to the product specialist."

On hold again.


The product itself is extremely intuitive. Even my 2 1/2 year old daughter could work it. I showed it to her and she immediately said "clock!" and pressed the clock button. She also found it very easy to scroll through photos.

I have my "answer" from Apple technical support. It was rather vague. There was possibly some confusion with the Apple ID (the one I use to log in to the iTunes store). I don't believe the explanation. It would explain the problem if the ipod was already connected, but not the very first time I took it out of the box. Apparently restarting the computer was the right thing to do.

God help you if restarting the computer does not help.

And God help you, if it doesn't work and you live in a place a loooong way from Apple support.

P.S (Since you have taken the time to read my blog, please feel free to have a look around if anything else interests you. The labels in the side column are a good starting point.)