Engelbert Humperdinck - Please release me - 1989
...
...
Pop music is made to be played back on home stereo systems. Wouldn’t it make sense to use the same kind of hi-fi speakers for monitoring and mixing? Yet recording professionals prefer dedicated monitor speakers for studio work. Here’s why!
Let’s first talk about technical differences. Home stereo or hi-fi speakers are almost always “passive” speakers; i.e. they require an external (power) amplifier with speaker outputs. Studio monitors, with very few exceptions, are “active” or “powered” speakers, which means the power amplifier is built into the speaker cabinet. So you have to connect it to a line source with a volume control, i.e. an audio interface or a dedicated monitor controller.
How do you know a speaker is active or passive? There’s a quick way to check: An active or powered speaker must have a mains inlet. Active speakers offer some advantages. Usually, they contain not only one power amplifier but several. The woofer, the tweeter and (if available) the mid-range speaker each get their own power amplifiers, which results in a punchier, more accurate dynamic response.
That’s because the woofer, which requires lots of power on each bass note and kick drum hit, won’t take away any energy from the other speakers – as it might on a passive speaker, powered by only one amp for all speakers. Having dedicated power amplifiers for each speaker also makes it easier to build top quality crossovers.
Not only because the crossover can be placed before the power amps, but also because active circuitry can be used to obtain steeper filter slopes. This reduces overlap between the woofer, mid-range speaker, and tweeter, which results in a clearer, more detailed sound image.
When music professionals listen to music, they do it with a different mindset than music consumers. Enthusiasts simply want to enjoy the music they love as best as they can. It doesn’t really matter if the sound they hear is an accurate reproduction of what the artist intended. All that matters is the listeners’ subjective impression. Most music consumers therefore prefer speakers that seem to enhance their listening experience.
Many hi-fi speakers accomplish this by boosting the bottom end and top end. The resulting “smiley curve” makes the music appear more powerful and crisp. Musicians, producers, and engineers want something different. They need to hear the plain truth.
They want speakers that add no extra sugar and hide no imperfections. It’s no different in the home studio. If there are wrong notes, extraneous noises, or imperfect sounds, you want to address those issues before anyone else may notice. So you need speakers that give you quite a bit more detail than usual hi-fi speakers.
At the mixing stage, you need to hear if the balance is perfect. There is a fine line between loud and too loud, between powerful drums and the drums overpowering the vocals. And there’s an even finer line between solid bass and booming bass, between crisp treble and harsh treble. It takes accurate and linear speakers to make such mix decisions with any degree of certainty.
Studio monitors are usually powered speakers with power amplifiers built into the cabinet. Powered speakers have a mains inlet on the rear, and the audio input usually has an XLR connector. When you go shopping for studio monitors, don’t get trapped into a consumer mentality.
Most dealers will demo studio monitors playing a Steely Dan CD or something else that’s extremely well recorded. It’s their way of giving you an enjoyable buying experience. But how could listening to a perfect recording tell you anything about a speaker’s ability to reveal flaws? As a result, you may end up buying the pair of speakers that sounds the most impressive. Unfortunately, this may not be the most accurate and linear pair but more hi-fi sounding speakers with a sort of smiley curve.
It’s much better to bring your own music or music that you know has little flaws. Don’t be vain! Don’t listen for speakers that make your mixes sound particularly impressive. Listen for speakers that reveal all the flaws and mistakes that you wish you could have addressed. Only if your music sounds great on the most revealing studio monitors will it sound great on any playback system!
https://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/difference-between-home-stereo-speakers-and-studio-monitors
A friend of mine is trying to convince me to buy PA speakers instead of Hi-Fi speakers for my Hi-Fi. He says that PA speakers will sound BETTER than the Hi-Fi speakers and the only reason people buy Hi-Fi speakers is that they look better in the home, can anybody throw some light on this please before I spend my money. I do not know a lot about Hi-Fi, so I appreciate any help on this...
Reminds me of a guy i saw once with his technics hi-fi speakers in his car......Wired to the radio....Presuming its like for like in terms of value.....they'll look daft, sound dreadfull, and you'll need a different caliber of amp to drive them. I used to have a pair of bose 801 series ones....the 8 driver array....
Now, in a small concert hall, or a nightclub....these babys will make your spine tingle.....the bass hits you like a sledgehammer from 40m away ! But, i did try on of them in my living room......and it was crap....LOUD, but crap....I know a few DJ's....all of them use Hi-Fi speakers in the house, even with proper decks.
PA speaker will certainly sound good, they will be loud, and they will handle lots of power, but they will not sound as good as HiFi speakers. But, again, 'not as good' shouldn't be interpreted as bad; PA speakers, assuming you've chosen reasonably good ones, will still sound good. If you look at the frequency response specs on PA speakers, they are seldom as good as HiFi speakers.
Keep in mind that PA speakers are made for producing sound; HiFi speaker are made for reproducing sound. Stated another way, PA is made for producing original content, and any flaws or coloration they add merely become a part of that original content. HiFi, on the other hand, is made for reproducing what was originally heard as accurately and fully as possible.
Since coloration and distortion and other similar aspects are part of the performance, they don't matter that much. However, the demands on a HiFi system to create the original experiences as accurately as possible, make those demands much higher than a PA system.
Again, if you have a decent PA system for you HiFi, don't worry about it, if you like them, just enjoy them. However, if you have not yet bought it, I think it would be better to go with HiFi. Just one exception, if you are using this for amateur or professional DJ'ing, then DJ speakers or PA speaker might be a better choice. But, no your friend is wrong, home HiFi speakers are NOT all about looks.
The bloke with the car stereo should have wired 4ohm speakers to a car stereo instead of 8ohm stereo speakers!
We use PA speakers sometimes, often they are the only option to generate high SPLs in large rooms. We have done extensive listening tests and concluded that high end PA speakers have a place in home cinema and HiFi. Dupe...See here for the ones we do, they come highly recommended. Look at the Boombox, BOOM.... 12V sounds....
RE creating high SPL......My good friend has a REL stadium 2 in his living room......and i can vouch for there being NO further requirement for SPL in a home cinema situation. I guess what im saying is, for the same given value...you'll be better of with home cinema stuff, than PA kit......90% of the time.......in terms of quality vs quantity.
As for those Funktion 1 R2's( presuming those are the ones you use).....you'd need the 15 inch driver version to go less than 250hz.......and...what cost is involved......2k ? Monolith - It's all about that bass!
In a fair few peoples opinion I would imagine, not just mine... Generating 105dB with ease in large rooms is not generally possible with HiFi based equipment, you need huge amounts of power which destroys transient response of the loudspeaker (basic raise times, it take longer for an amp to generate 600W than 2 or 3W), and with all that power you get heat generated, non-linear behaviour starts to happen and distortion.
Therefore once listening distances get into 4m+ PA speakers start to become very useful, high efficiency and robust designs.
I am not overly familiar with the REL, but have heard good things and I am sure it is great. I have made a decision to go to PA based products for my high end work based on extensive work I have done, I am happy, my customers are happy.
I think the reason PA stuff gets a bad reputation is that there is so much cheep rubbish about, piezo tweeters etc, the PA designers I have met compare there speakers to live performances and studio monitors, ATC, Genelec etc. they spend years (30+) getting the designs right, developing new loading techniques etc just like HiFi designers. Descent PA speakers are just big HiFi speakers?..
I noticed they quote 105dB @1M with 1W.....thats pretty impressive....so is your 105dB @3m with 2w.....what was it with....and.....cumon.....spill the beans....what kind of damage does pair of R2's do to my wallet ? without any amplification ?
That figure comes from the Resolution 1 mid/high driver, which covers 550Hz to around 16kHz. This is 112dB @1m with 1W, hence the 105dB line.... This uses a paper 5" drive unit, the Resolution 2 has a 8" paper driver which covers a smaller frequency range.
They are a different beast needing a minimum of Bi-amping and most systems are tri-amped, quad-amped or even 5 way if you add in infrabass units. A pair of active Resolution 2, all UK designed and manufactured come in at less than £10k, the 3 way passives are around 3.5k less.
The Resolution 1s are less again and start to represent good value when compred to the equivelent HiFi speaker. Loads of options are possible including skeletal cabinets which save more money as in a domestic situation you don't need a touring grade cabinet!
Most pa speakers sound very harsh in the highs, if your close to them. Unless they are very expensive like Funktion One or use slot tweeters say. Some of the pa mids sound pretty good such as Beyma 6MI90 6.5 inch with phase plug.
However not many small PA subs have huge xmax except for the Eminence HL-10(11.1mm xmax) 38hz, Eminence Lab12(13mm xmax,22hz),Ciare 12NDH, and Ciare 12.00 SW 11.5mm xmax, 1000w aes and goes to 20hz.
Theres plenty of pa 18 inchers that go to 20hz or 25hz and have over 15mm xmax. Ciare 18.00 SW goes down to 20hz with 14mm xmax. Eighteen Sound 18NLW9600 has a 14mm xmax. B&C 21SW150 has a 6 inch voice coil, and 15mm xmax. But is 21 inch.
BassHead indirectly brings up another point, which PA speakers vs which HiFi speakers? Good PA against bad HiFi and the PA wins, but good HiFi against bad PA (and there are lots of those), and HiFi wins. If we are talking a pair of £500 PA against £500 HiFi, I would say it is likely to be pretty close. However, if we are talking £100 PA against £100 HiFi, without a doubt in the fidelity department, the HiFi wins. In the loud and power handling department, the PA win.
Also, you have people talking about +100db sound levels. Do you really know how loud that is in your living room? IT IS REALLY LOUD. I was recently running some tests on my speaker recently, and I was curious just how loud 100 db was. So, I got out my Sound Level meter and checked. Slightly loud by very comfortable listening was in the 65db to 75db range (average level, not peaks).
When the sound for either TV or Music went over 80db, it started to become annoyingly loud. I did crank it up to 90db (average), but that was very uncomfortably loud in my living room. In a concert hall, it might have been fine, but in the average living room, it was way too much.
Now, in another similar discussion, someone responded and said they listened at +100db levels on his home cinema all the time, but I suspect he was talking about transient peak levels, not sustaining an average +100db level. That is loud enough to cause hearing damage.
Likely if you get even close to sustained or average 100db levels it will drive people out of the room. The 80db to 90db level is far and away loud enough for most people, except perhaps the neighbors.
You would never want 100dB average levels for exactly the reason you have noted. Nominal level of Dolby Digital tracks is 85dB with a peak of 105dB. getting that 105dB peak (gunshots, explosions etc) playing cleanly is what costs the big bucks though.
The one thing I hadn't had time to test was the levels of an action movie at normal listening levels. I found essentially what I found before, 70db to 80db was comfortable, but loud. When the average went above 80db it got a little too loud.
Tubificid worms are related to earthworms and like them are detritus / debris eaters.
However at those average levels I was able to general peak levels of 100db or more. It is difficult because my meter is set up in 20db ranges so I can't average 80db or 90db and measure over 100db. But I suspect I was jumping up to 101db, 102db, and only on the very rarest occasions maybe reaching 103db.
But here is the interesting part, all this was done with my Volume Control set at about 1/3 or near the 10 o'clock position. I had plenty of volume control left and could have easily reached peaks in far excess of 105db. Also keep in mind that I don't have a Subwoofer.
I had plenty of volume control left and could have easily reached peaks in far excess of 105db. ... Also keep in mind that I don't have a Subwoofer.
Reference level is defined as 105dB on the main channels, but 115dB on the LFE. If you don't have a sub, you need to get that 115dB on the main channels and unless you're using Accuphase monoblocks or very high efficiency floorstanders, it is very unlikely that you are going to manage 115dB at 20Hz (or even something quite a way away). That's why the standard is to use a decent active sub.
I found this thread to answer the same question. I already have Mackie srm450's swinging from the ceiling of my living room and a Mackie 15" sub nearby. I'll give them a go and let you know. There is no room for proper hifi speakers.
Traditional indigenous Maya "tocoyal" hair wrap.
...
...
Due to having a large living room(8meters by 4 open plan) and a desire to have full range sound which is able to go loud, I couldn't decide what system to have. I didn't have a big budget and had to build my system when I had spare cash. I started with a Kenwood 3020se amp and Jamo GF 35 speakers - this was ok but bass lacked depth and speakers a little too boomy, these could go quite loud but nothing serious.
I added x2 15" tornado car subs in home made MDF enclosure and wired all of the speakers in parallel to channel A (as the Kenwood amp could drive a 2ohm load). Sound was loud and powerful but precision was totally void as you can imagine - this was louder than some low powered PA systems I have heard.
After a lot of experimenting and component swapping, I now have PA/hifi combination (Daisy chained through a mixer) in my living room. I have never been so satisfied and have not heard a set up like it, It might not be to everyone's taste but everyone who has heard it has been impressed. I listen most genres mainly house music. I started with the Yamaha as500 amp, mission 700 bookshelf speakers x2, mission 771 bookshelf speakers x2.
The sound quality was decent but not loud enough and as the speakers are wall mounted - lacked depth, so I added a Tannoy TS2.12(500w RMS) subwoofer, to which a was initially ecstatic at how low and powerful this subwoofer sounded and spent a long time setting it up.
The only trouble was that the subwoofer had the power to drown the missions speakers and they lost the punchy sound, to which I quickly became irritated by the lack of mid/high bass . I added a graphic equalizer - this didnt help.
I applied some Jamo D265 which I picked up cheap(Yamaha can also cope with 2ohm load with no cutting out at maximum level without distortion) this helped but not like id hoped. Ive recently added a Kam Kxr 1500 amp and Wharfedale EVP-X15b bass drivers x2 and 2 Wharfedale EVP-X12 mk2, which run from the headphone socket of the Yamaha amp through a Behringer mixer - which enabled to achieve a full range sound with the deep bass coming from the tannoy subwoofer the powerful punch and lower mids coming from the wharfdales and the high frequency sounds coming from the mission speakers and this system goes very loud! without distortion.
I have found that the pa system individually doesn't sound good in my living room on its own as it lacks bass depth and high frequencies are to harsh - although it sounded excellent outside and In a hall. It also sound poor at low volumes.
I listen to some high end hifi systems cost lots of money £4000 in showrooms and expected to be blown away only to be disappointed - I feel there are no experts in listening but ourselves - its all about personal taste! Thanks for reading any feedback is welcome.
https://www.avforums.com/threads/hifi-speakers-vs-pa-speakers.943268/
The demands of large venue sound reinforcement are very different than, say, home theater, recording studio, audiophile, or symphony hall. One way of describing the difference is “production of sound” where the nuances of the live performance include the unique qualities of the mics, preamps, mixer, eq, amps and speakers. vs. “reproduction of sound” which attempts to accurately reproduce a recorded sound.
The other is the distance between the speakers and the audience, power requirements, “shape” of the sound, and rigging. In order to accomplish this concert speakers have most or all of the following features: High continuous power input. Often 500W - 1500W continuous per speaker. Very different than Maximum Input Power spec for home speakers.
Temperature handling - the energy of continuous power must be dissipated, and would destroy a home speaker or at least introduce terrible distortion.
Sound Pressure Level vs Sensitivity. Far to technical to go into here, but these are very different measures. PA speakers output is measured in SPL (1 W/1 M) and can range as high as 133 dB. Home speakers are usually rated as Sensitivity (about 80 - 90 dB for good speakers) which is the difference in audible dynamic range.
Anyone who’s been to an outdoor venue has experienced the variability in SPL with air pressure - that’s the difference between the sound created and the sound received. Requires a lot of equations to explain, but you can hear it.
High Power and good transient response, or time required to rapidly change dynamics, are a demanding problem. Most home speakers “cheat” by using reflex designs incapable of the the transient response in a large room, which is why they sound “muddy” if you try to use a home system to DJ a wedding.
Frequency response. Low frequencies use far more power for the same output, and are absorbed differently, so PA systems produce over 50–80Hz with the mains, and below that with subs. Sending the full response to the mains will dramatically reduce the amount of sound you can create.
The combined output of the speaker setup is a carefully designed matter of sound engineering specific to the venue that attempts to create even sound pressure across the audience.
Therefore, the positioning and shape of the sound from each PA speaker (depending on whether they are line array speakers or individually mounted) is narrower and work together, so that the SPL at the listener is high enough across hundreds of feet, but not make the front row’s ears bleed (too much).
PA speakers are often bi-amped by an amp that can handle the current output as low as 2 ohms (I=V/R) OR are powered individually to avoid huge stacks of hot amps backstage.
Concert speakers are usually mounted in a line array, or flown with M10 mounts, so have the necessary mount points to safely secure them high above the audiences heads. PA speakers are very rugged so they can survive being moved from venue to venue night after night for years.
There are many types of speakers used at concerts. The most common are plastic horn and woofer speakers found in bars, hotels, meeting facilities, convention halls, some churches and local outdoors concerts. They are mounted on walls or on poles, and are generally 30cm to 1 meter in dimensions. Older ones were made of plywood and cheaper ones may be made from wood composite.
They are generally a bad compromise between speech and music, between cost and even coverage, loudness and accuracy because the middle, most sensitive frequency range between 400Hz and 4KHz is split in half and combined with the bass on the woofer and treble in the horn.
The physics of speakers make it impossible to get flat frequency response and even coverage over more than 10:1 in frequency range. Horn and woofer cabinets cover from 100Hz to 10,000Hz poorly, so more sophisticated speakers use various techniques to get better sound, especially better sound in big rooms which have too much reverb.
This is why bigger venues have tall, thin speakers like column speakers in churches for delivering sermons and line arrays for popular music in arenas and outdoor festivals, to deliver a higher portion of the sound directly to the audience.
These combine the sound of many smaller speakers to get more sound in specific places and less sound bouncing off the ceiling or vanishing into the stratosphere outdoors; but they have temporal and spatial anomalies because they can’t line up coherent phase at any angle or frequency.
The Danley Unity horn combines separate midrange and treble horns into one structure for uni-point phase coherent sound over vocal frequencies. This delivers more accurate voice and musical consonants - that is, how the sounds start, stop and transition. These are rectangular plywood cabinets, larger than the conventional horn and woofer 2 way speakers.
Altec-Lansing made a woofer/horn combination that was co-axial like the Unity with a curvilinear cone that was widely used for studio monitors, but rarely on stage. There are vintage PA speakers with multi-cellular horns or other large exponential horns with woofers mounted in horns like the classic Altec-Lansing “Voice of the Theater”; but the only ones I have heard that compete with modern horns are Klangfilm.
Some of my favorite stage speakers are “side fills” which use cone midranges and/or smaller woofers and short waveguides like the EAW UBx series (under balcony). AMT and ribbon type tweeters have flatter response, better transient response and better spatial control than nearly all horns and are made practical by the latest magnets from China.
Computer modelling and manufacturing are producing novel horn shapes with less frequency response hash (Tractrix) or asymmetrical projection for specific room shapes so the leading edge of technology is upgrading rapidly.
Another category of speakers that are nearly universal are “Musical Instrument” (MI) amplifiers. These were made popular by Leo Fender, who combined the design of electric guitars, basses and pianos and their electro-acoustic “sound boards”.
These offer truer sound than PA speakers because each instrument has an electrically and acoustically separate speaker tuned to create the sonic character of the instrument, instead of “one size fits all”.
Mixing different instruments and voices into two main speakers is inherently spatial distortion and also create intermodulation distortion. Even stereo from recording studios is a crude illusion that only exists on the center line between left and right speakers; the classic rock stage format of amps next to the respective players and only vocals in the PA is a more authentic and musical sound.
Running all instruments through the PA is normal now because musicians don’t want to carry heavy amps, sound engineers want to control everything, and many concerts also include pre-recorded bits. Is some cases, the whole concert is fake pre-recorded sound.
You will also see monitor speakers littering the stages of concerts. These sit on the floor and angle up at the performers so they can hear themselves and each other.
On higher profile concerts these are often replaced by “In Ear Monitors”, custom fitted wireless earbuds that cost thousands of dollars and deliver better sound to stage and audience by eliminating the confusion of the entire concert sound mix coming out of so many speakers.
Whichever ones the sound designer specifies. Different sound engineers like different speakers. Different styles of speakers suit different situations better (e.g. a big boomy room vs a small low-ceilinged room would each benefit from a different type of speaker). Some rooms have a “house PA” which you are required to use, or choose to use, whereas in others you are permitted or required to bring your own.
Most hire companies only hire particular types of speakers and if the promoter requires you to use that company then the choices are reduced. Different types of music need different specifications in speakers (e.g. Drum & Bass will need lots of subs and some good quality tweeters with not too much in between whereas classical music will need as close to a flat response as possible - i.e. all frequencies reproduced evenly).
So there is no one answer, I’m afraid. It’s a bit like asking “what dishes are served in a Michelin starred restaurant”. We could give you an idea of the sort of thing that might be served, but we can’t say that everywhere you go will will be able to order Pheasant Breast with a Red Wine and Apricot Jus.
So there is no one answer, I’m afraid. It’s a bit like asking “what dishes are served in a Michelin starred restaurant”. We could give you an idea of the sort of thing that might be served, but we can’t say that everywhere you go will will be able to order Pheasant Breast with a Red Wine and Apricot Jus.
The speaker used in a concert hall (aka the PA system) can be compared to the speakers in your home. Both will get air in motion. To use an analogy; your speakers at home are like something between a small rowing boat and a yacht, the PA system is like a cruise ship. The cruise ship is bigger and can entertain way more people at the same time … effortless.
The exact model and set-up of the speakers in a PA depend much on the venue and the kind of sound that has to be amplified. A big rock concert in a stadium requires a completely different approach than a jazz concert in a classical music hall.
There is no universal standards as to “What speakers are used in concerts?”. Generally it can be said that they are “Professional” speakers (as against “Home” speakers or “Audiophile” speakers).
The traits that make a speaker “Pro” is ability to handle power and play loud. To cover large areas they play in the pro speakers must play loud. To play loud they must use large cones and should have large magnets capable of handling more power. Some companies that excel in manufacturing pro speakers are JBL, Tannoy, Wharfedale etc. In India, generally they use JBL or JBL locally made JBL look-alikes.
A whole range of different speakers, but most of the time we are talking about PA (Public Address) speakers in the style of a line-array: These are very common at concert because they provide everyone in the audience, regardless of where they are, with a timed and correct sound.
Chances are, you’ll find yourself at some kind of big-venue music show this summer, whether it's Radiohead at an outdoor festival or Fiona Apple at an intimate, medium-sized music hall. We’ve all been there. We expect to be dazzled (or dizzied, or blinded) by the light show, and rumbled deep in our guts by the subwoofers.
You’re going to need a lot more than a couple of compact indoor speakers in order to be heard at Madison Square Garden or Wembley Stadium – however, if you’re playing to a small crowd in the courtyard of a coffeehouse, single compact outdoor DJ speakers may provide more than enough volume.
Stacks of amps are typically used in order to give rock bands enough volume at indoor shows. These shows may be held at arenas, stadiums or clubs. The amount of stacks needed will depend on the size of the space and the amount of people who will be attending.
All indoor spaces have particular acoustics. Experienced sound technicians figure out what’s needed and then use the right number of amps in the right configurations. There’s a science to creating great sound for music concerts – however, you should find tons of tips online which will help you to master this science.
Concert audio equipment is available from a range of retailers. When you’re shopping around, be sure to go for a trusted brand with a strong and positive reputation, whether you need a single amp or speaker or more volume.
I’ve been to different concerts before, and from what I noticed, line array speakers are commonly used. They are made up of multiple and identical loudspeakers stacked above one another. Besides such equipment, I’m really not familiar with other types of systems used in concerts.
But I’m sure that events like these use a variety of sound equipment. Actually, when my sister acquired a PA hire Birmingham services from a company she found online, they utilised quite a lot of sound systems. Anyway, I suggest that you do some online research if you really want to know more about such equipment.
https://www.quora.com/What-speakers-are-used-in-concerts
Ezekiel, also spelled Ezechiel, Hebrew Ye?ezqel, (flourished 6th century bc), prophet-priest of ancient Israel and the subject and in part the author of an Old Testament book that bears his name. Ezekiel’s early oracles (from c. 592) in Jerusalem were pronouncements of violence and destruction; his later statements addressed the hopes of the Israelites exiled in Babylon.
The faith of Ezekiel in the ultimate establishment of a new covenant between God and the people of Israel has had profound influence on the postexilic reconstruction and reorganization of Judaism.
Ezekiel’s ministry was conducted in Jerusalem and Babylon in the first three decades of the 6th century bc. For Ezekiel and his people, these years were bitter ones because the remnant of the Israelite domain, the little state of Judah, was eliminated by the rising Babylonian empire under Nebuchadrezzar (reigned 605–562 bc). Jerusalem surrendered in 597 bc.
Israelite resistance was nevertheless renewed, and in 587–586 the city was destroyed after a lengthy siege. In both debacles, and indeed again in 582, large numbers from the best elements of the surviving population were forcibly deported to Babylonia.
Before the first surrender of Jerusalem, Ezekiel was a functioning priest probably attached to the Jerusalem Temple staff. He was among those deported in 597 to Babylonia, where he was located at Tel-abib on the Kebar canal (near Nippur).
It is evident that he was, among his fellow exiles, a person of uncommon stature. Ezekiel’s religious call came in July 592 when he had a vision of the “throne-chariot” of God. He subsequently prophesied until 585 and then is not heard of again until 572. His latest datable utterance can be dated about 570 bc, 22 years after his first.
These two periods of prophesying, separated by 13 years, represent various emphases in Ezekiel’s message. His earlier oracles to the Jews in Palestine were pronouncements of God’s judgment on a sinful nation for its apostasy.
Ezekiel said that Judah was guiltier than Israel had been and that Jerusalem would fall to Nebuchadrezzar and its inhabitants would be killed or exiled. According to him, Judah trusted in foreign gods and foreign alliances, and Jerusalem was a city full of injustice. Pagan rites abounded in the courts of the Temple.
After the fall of Jerusalem and his period of silence, Ezekiel now addressed himself more pointedly to the exiles and sought to direct their hopes for the restoration of their nation. His theme changed from the harsh judgment of God to the promise of the future.
Ezekiel prophesied that the exiles from both Judah and Israel would return to Palestine, leaving none in the Diaspora. In the imminent new age a new covenant would be made with the restored house of Israel, to whom God would give a new spirit and a new heart.
The restoration would be an act of divine grace, for the sake of God’s name. Ezekiel’s prophecies conclude with a vision of a restored Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple’s form of worship would be reestablished in Israel, and each of the ancient tribes would receive appropriate allotments of land.
In contrast to those hoping for national restoration under a Davidic king, Ezekiel envisaged a theocratic community revolving around the Temple and its cult as the nexus of the restored Jewish state.
More than any of the classical biblical prophets, Ezekiel was given to symbolic actions, strange visions, and even trances (although it is quite gratuitous to deduce from these, and from his words “I fell upon my face” [1:28], that he was a cataleptic). He eats a scroll on which words of prophecy are written, in order to symbolize his appropriation of the message (3:1–3).
He lies down for an extended time to symbolize Israel’s punishment (4:4ff). He is apparently struck dumb on one occasion for an unspecified length of time (3:26). As other prophets have done before him, he sees the God-to-People relationship as analogous to that of husband to unfaithful wife and therefore understands the collapse of the life of Judah as a judgment for essential infidelity.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ezekiel-Hebrew-prophet
The prophet Ezekiel was a contemporary of Jeremiah. He lived during the time of the fall of Jerusalem and was among those who were exiled to Babylon. He was exiled in 597 BC, eleven years before Jerusalem fell, and his prophetic ministry took place in the context of the exile. Ezekiel was from a priestly line, and much of his ministry centered on issues concerning the temple.
He spent much of his time telling the exiles that Jerusalem would indeed fall (as it did in 586 BC), and so they should not expect a quick return to their land. Instead, they should focus their energies on living in their new exilic context in obedience to God.
In the end, however, in a memorable vision of dry bones coming to life, Ezekiel prophesied that temple would be restored and the people would return to the land.The book claims to be autobiographical, and most scholars take this claim at face value.
Many readers are familiar with the story of Ezekiel’s call (chapters 1-3), where he sees a storm coming from the north, which represents God’s appearing (theophany). It is worth noting that in other literature of that time period, the north represents the mythical home of the storm-god. Ezekiel also sees four living creatures with four wings and four faces each, later described as cherubim and guardians of God’s throne.
The presence of wings, plus the intersecting wheels, suggests mobility, which figures into Ezekiel’s prophecies later—God does not stand still and is not tied to the temple. In Ezekiel’s call, he is referred to as “son of man,” which is a phrase used throughout the book. This simply means “human” and is meant to contrast Ezekiel to God. In the New Testament, it takes on a messianic tone under the influence of Daniel 7:13.
Unlike other prophetic books, Ezekiel unfolds in basic chronological order. For example, in chapters 4-24 Ezekiel delivers prophecies against Judah and then Jerusalem. In these chapters, Ezekiel appears to be one of the more colorful—some would say bizarre—characters in the Bible.
For example, Ezekiel symbolically acts out God’s judgment on Israel in his own life: unable to talk, lying on his left side for 390 days and his right for another 40 days, shaving his head, packing a bag and pretending to go into exile, and not mourning for his dead wife. As odd as these actions seem to us, they were part of the socially understood abnormal behaviors that characterized prophetic activity in the ancient world as a whole.
Ezekiel 16 and 23 portray Jerusalem as God’s wife—once faithful but now going after other gods. Ezekiel describes how God found her as an abandoned infant, but raised her and then married her. She turned into a whore, however, and paid other lovers (gods of other nations) for sex.
Her punishment was to be stripped naked in public, stoned with her lovers watching, cut with swords, her children killed, and her houses destroyed. This may be a troubling metaphor for modern readers, but it served its theological purpose in a patriarchal society.
Ezekiel 25-32 consists of prophecies against the other nations. The bulk of these oracles are centered on Tyre, the capital of Phoenicia, and Egypt. According to these chapters, Tyre is a jewel of a city, like the Garden of Eden, but in the end will get what it deserves for its leader’s arrogant pretension against God.
The Hindu deity Lakshmi is the goddess of prosperity, wealth, purity, generosity; and is the embodiment of beauty, grace, and charm.
Egypt as well faces the impending judgment of God. Historically, Egypt had imposed rule over Judah just before the fall of Jerusalem, and some of Judah’s kings had sought alliances with Egypt. According to Ezekiel’s oracle, this does not matter to God, for Egypt too will come to naught.
Ezekiel 33-48 speaks of future restoration for Israel and for the temple. God will be Israel’s shepherd, and God will usher in a future time of peace. In a dramatic scene, Israel’s restoration is described as human bones coming to life. The bones are scattered in a valley, but come together, become covered with skin and muscles, and then miraculously come to life.
Readers should understand that this scene is a metaphor for Israel’s rebirth after the exile and is not a literal description of resurrection from the dead. These chapters also mention the infamous “Gog” and “Magog.”
Gog likely represents the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and Magog is likely tied to Babylon. Over the centuries, some have tried to identity these names with contemporary places, people or events.
Many American Christians will probably remember such comparisons in the 1980’s between Gog and Magog and the Soviet Union. But such comparisons are simply imaginative and fanciful thoughts imposed by modern readers. Gog and Magog are also mentioned in the Book of Revelation, where they come to symbolize any forces that oppose God.
Ezekiel ends with a detailed vision of the future, centering on the restored temple. The temple is rebuilt with the priests back at work, and the glory of God returns to the temple and to God’s people. The temple is described using ancient mythological language: the temple is the center (navel) of the earth and set on a high mountain with a river flowing from it.
In the end, Jerusalem is also given a new name, “Yahweh is there,” which reflects the driving theme of the book: God’s restoration of God’s people and God’s city amid national tragedy. Through the course of all these events, Ezekiel continually points out that Israel’s God is in complete and sovereign control over God’s people’s destiny.
http://thecenterforbiblicalstudies.org/resources/introductions-to-the-books-of-the-bible/ezekiel/
Structured water is a molecular arrangement of water molecules that exists when water is near hydrophilic (water loving) surfaces. Much like ice, water molecules join together in hexagonally structured single layer sheets.
Unlike ice, however, the sheets are flexible and move independently as they are not glued together by protons. The majority of the water in your body is structured water as your bodily tissues are hydrophilic.
In a properly designed vortex, some water molecules dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen. This newly created oxygen and any oxygen already dissolved in the water is mixed up uniformly. Oxygen itself is a hydrophilic element. Hexagonal sheets of structured water grow outward from the oxygen, layer by layer.
Chemists, biologists, physicists, engineers, and medical doctors graduating today (right now!) are not learning about the existence of structured water. That is, unless they were residents in Professor Gerald Pollack’s laboratory at the University of Washington.
In his book “The Fourth Phase of Water” (published 2013) Dr. Pollack describes exactly what structured water is and discusses the mountains of scientific data from his experiments over the last several years.
While it may take awhile before you can discuss structured water with your doctor or that scientist who lives down the street from you, currently Dr. Pollack’s book is the best resource on the topic. It is well-written and we highly recommend it to anyone interested in structured water.
The totality of structured water does not just include the hexagonal sheets of water molecules mentioned earlier, but also the water immediately surrounding them. As the hexagonal layers grow, protons are ejected into the nearby water.
This creates a most unexpected phenomenon - an electrical potential (voltage) between the structured water and the water surrounding it. In other words, structured water stores energy, much like a battery.
You might be wondering, “If structured water is a battery, what charges it?” Dr. Pollack discovered that structured water grows (charges) by absorbing radiant energy. Both light waves and infrared waves, for example, charge structured water with energy.
Structured water is a battery that needs constant charging. Energized structured water recharges the liquid battery of the body. When the body has sufficient energy, its aqueous interior is highly charged allowing for optimized cellular and metabolic function in addition to greater hydration and detoxification.
As many diseases are rooted in toxicity, dehydration, and improper cell function, consuming energized structured water may improve health in a number of ways. Recent experiments even suggest that water structuring is responsible for proper blood and lymph circulation in the body.
While vortexing creates structured water, not all structured water devices are created equal. This is because once the conditions for structured water have been created by the vortex, the water then needs to absorb radiant energy from the environment to build up the structure further and charge the water battery.
It can be said then that structured water needs to ‘mature’ before it is consumed. Viktor Schauberger, the Austrian naturalist and ‘water genius’ said the same thing in many of his famous writings.
Freshly vortexed water, or structured water, provides the body with some energy. However, for true benefits, one should drink only energized structured water. Only energized structured water maximizes structured water’s health benefit to the body.
https://aqualiv.com/pages/structured-water-hexagonal-water-microclustered-water
Structured water, sometimes called magnetized or hexagonal water, refers to water with a structure that’s been altered to form a hexagonal cluster. This cluster of water molecules is believed to share similarities with water that hasn’t been polluted or contaminated by human processes.
The theory behind structured water suggests these qualities make it healthier than tap or filtered water. According to structured water proponents, this type of water exists naturally in mountain springs, glacier melt, and other untouched sources. Others believe you can turn regular water into structured water by:
Magnetizing it through a process called vortexing; exposing it to ultraviolet or infrared light; exposing it to natural heat and energy, such as sunlight; storing it in gemstone water bottles. According to the theory behind structured water, vortexing water charges it, allowing it to hold energy. This energy then may allegedly recharge the body and hydrate it more thoroughly than ordinary drinking water
Some proponents cite a 2013 studyTrusted Source on magnetized, structured water. According to the study, magnetized water seemed to decrease blood glucose levels and reduce damage to blood and liver DNA in rats with induced diabetes after eight weeks.
While these results are promising, the study was small and the results haven’t been replicated in humans. In addition, the water used in the study was provided by Korea Clean System Co., a company that sells structured water.
The chemical formula for water is H2O, which means each water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The formula for structured water is said to be H3O2. But water’s chemical formula has always been H2O. A different chemical formula would indicate a different substance that chemists haven’t identified.
Proponents of structured water claim that it holds a unique hexagonal shape. But water molecules are in constant motion. This means that its structure is frequently changing.
A 2008 study conducted by undergraduate students and published in the Journal of Chemical Education looked at water before and after it was magnetized to see if magnetizing the water actually altered its composition. According to their results, the magnetized water didn’t show any significant variations in hardness, pH, or conductivity.
https://www.healthline.com/health/structured-water#takeaway
In the eleventh month of the twelfth[a] year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,’
3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.
4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.
7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[b] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust.
Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground.
12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more.
14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
15 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says to Tyre: Will not the coastlands tremble at the sound of your fall, when the wounded groan and the slaughter takes place in you? 16 Then all the princes of the coast will step down from their thrones and lay aside their robes and take off their embroidered garments. Clothed with terror, they will sit on the ground, trembling every moment, appalled at you. 17 Then they will take up a lament concerning you and say to you:
“‘How you are destroyed, city of renown,
peopled by men of the sea!
You were a power on the seas,
you and your citizens;
you put your terror
on all who lived there.
Now the coastlands tremble
on the day of your fall;
the islands in the sea
are terrified at your collapse.’
19 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago.
I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place[c] in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.”
https://www-biblegateway-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2026&version=NIV&interface=amp&_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=32&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15779827634216&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Famp%2Fs%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%253fsearch%3DEzekiel%252b26%26version%3DNIV%26interface%3Damp&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=navigateTo%2Ccid%2CfullReplaceHistory%2Cfragment%2CreplaceUrl
Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bible’s divine inspiration. Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.
Ezekiel’s prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame. In verse 2 of the first chapter, the prophet noted that his visions and prophecies began “in the fifth year of King Johoiachin’s captivity.” The date for this captivity is virtually unanimously accepted as 597 B.C. during the second deportation of citizens from Judea to Babylon, which is documented in detail in 2 Kings 24:10-20.
Furthermore, not only is the deportation recorded in the biblical account, but the ancient Chaldean records document it as well (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 194). Since Ezekiel’s visions began five years after the deportation, then a firm date of 592 B.C. can be established for the beginning of his prophecy.
The prophet supplies other specific dates such as the seventh year (20:1), the ninth year (24:1), the eleventh year (26:1), and the latest date given as the twenty-seventh year (29:17) [Note: for an outline see Archer, 1974, pp. 368-369].
Due to the firmly established dating system that Ezekiel chose to use for his prophecy, the date of the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, found in chapter 26, can be accurately established as the eleventh year after 597, which would be 586 B.C.
THE CITY OF TYRE
According to history, the Phoenician city of Tyre, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, stood as one of the most ancient and prosperous cities in history. Herodotus, known as the father of modern history, lived and wrote between about 490 B.C. and 425 B.C. (Herodotus, 1972, p. i).
During a visit to the temple of Heracles in Tyre, Herodotus inquired about the age of the temple, to which the inhabits replied that the temple was as old as “Tyre itself, and that Tyre had already stood for two thousand three hundred years” (Herodotus, 2:44). From Herodotus, then, it can be supposed that the city goes back to 2,700 B.C.
Due to its advantageous geographical position and good ports, Tyre became one of the wealthiest trading cities in history. Fleming noted that it “was the most important of all Phoenician cities” (1966, p. ix).
During the reigns of King David and King Solomon (circa 1000 B.C.), Hiram, king of Tyre, played a major role in the acquisition of building materials for important structures such as the Israelite kings’ houses and the first temple.
In numerous biblical passages, the text states that Hiram sent cedar trees, carpenters, masons, and builders to Israel (2 Samuel 5:11) because of the Tyrians’ renowned skill in timber cutting (1 Kings 5:1-18). In addition, the Tyrians were equally well known for their remarkable ability to navigate the seas during Solomon’s era.
Second Chronicles documents that Hiram sent ships and “servants who knew the sea” to work with Solomon’s men in acquiring gold from foreign lands (2 Chronicles 8:18).
The city of Tyre had a rather interesting and beneficial geographical arrangement. About half a mile off the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea stood a small rocky island on which the original city of Tyre was most likely founded. Some time after the founding of this island city, the mainland city of Tyre was founded, which was called Old Tyre by the Greeks (Fleming, p. 4).
Josephus cites a Phoenician historian named Dius, as reporting that the Phoenician king Hiram, who was closely connected to kings David and Solomon, built a causeway from the original island to a smaller island, connecting the two (Against Apion, 1.17).
In addition to its beneficial geographic position, the city had great confidence in its many excellent defensive advantages. Fleming noted: “As early as 1400 B.C. Tyre was not only a great city but was considered impregnable” (p. 8).
The ancient historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (most likely writing in approximately A.D. 50), listed several of these defensive traits that had remained intact as late as the siege by Alexander in 332 B.C. The force of the water and the wind that prevailed on the side of the city closest to the land was said to have produced a “corrosive force of waves” that would hinder the construction of any type of bridge or causeway from the mainland (4.2.8).
Furthermore, the water nearest to the walls of the city was “especially deep” and would force any would-be attackers to position any type of siege mechanisms in the unstable foundation of a ship, and the wall “dropped sheer into the sea,” which prevented the use of ladders or approach by foot (4.2.9).
During the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was well established and renowned for its building, manufacturing, and trade. Ezekiel said of Tyre: “Your builders have perfected your beauty” (27:4), and then he proceeded to list several different kinds of wood and imported materials used by the Tyrians (27:3-11).
The prophet stated: “When your wares went out by sea, you satisfied many people; you enriched the kings of the earth with your many luxury goods and your merchandise” (27:33).
But Tyre’s profitable trading had done little positive for its spiritual condition. In fact, as is often the case, the riches accrued by the city had caused widespread dereliction and spiritual decay. Concerning the city, Ezekiel noted: “By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned....
Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of splendor.... You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities” (28:16-18).
Among the sins listed by Ezekiel, one specific attitude maintained by Tyre was designated by the prophet as the ultimate reason for the city’s demise. Ezekiel noted: “[B]ecause Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! She is broken who was the gateway of the peoples; now she is turned over to me; I shall be filled; she is laid waste.’ Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre’” (26:2-3). Apparently, in an attitude of commercial jealousy and greed, the city of Tyre exulted in Jerusalem’s misfortunes and expected to turn them into its own profit.
Among Tyre’s list of despicable activities, the city’s slave trade ranked as one of the most profitable. The prophet Joel noted that Tyre had taken the people from Judah and Jerusalem and sold them to the Greeks so that the Tyrians could “remove them far from their borders” (Joel 3:6). These dastardly dealings with the inhabitants of Judah would not go unpunished.
In Ezekiel 26, the prophet mentioned several events that were to occur in Tyre as punishment for the city’s arrogance and merciless actions. The following is a lengthy, but necessary, quote from that chapter:
Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.
It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,” says the Lord God; “it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”
For thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you.
He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached.
With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground.
They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more.
I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,” says the Lord God....
For thus says the Lord God: “When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you may never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living.
I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,” says the Lord God (26:1-14,19-21).
Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city;
(4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt.
In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21).
The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45).
The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45).
The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.
It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur.
That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.
After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11).
However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.
Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18).
Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field).
Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts.
Surge Nubret
...
...
After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52).
Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone”.
Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid.
ALEXANDER AND TYRE
The historical account of Alexander the Great’s dealings with Tyre adds another important piece to Ezekiel’s prophecy. By 333 B.C., Ezekiel’s prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and its building material cast into the midst of the waters had yet to materialize.
But that situation was soon to be altered. Ancient historian Diodorus Siculus, who lived from approximately 80-20 B.C., wrote extensively of the young Greek conqueror’s dealing with Tyre. It is from his original work that much of the following information on Tyre’s destruction derives (see Siculus, 1963, 17.40-46).
In his dealings with Tyre, Alexander asserted that he wished to make a personal sacrifice in the temple of Heracles on the island city of Tyre. Apparently, because the Tyrians considered their island refuge virtually impregnable, with war machines covering the walls, and rapidly moving water acting as an effective barrier from land attack, they refused his request.
Upon receiving their refusal, Alexander immediately set to work on a plan to besiege and conquer the city. He set upon the task of building a land bridge or cause way (Siculus calls it a “mole”) from the mainland city of Tyre to the island city. Siculus stated: “Immediately he demolished what was called Old Tyre and set many tens of thousands of men to work carrying stones to construct a mole” (17.40).
Curtius Rufus noted: “Large quantities of rock were available, furnished by old Tyre” (4.2.18). This unprecedented action took the Tyrians by complete surprise. Fleming noted: “In former times the city had shown herself well nigh impregnable. That Alexander’s method of attack was not anticipated is not strange, for there was no precedent for it in the annals of warfare” (p. 56).
And yet, even though this action was unprecedented militarily, it was exactly what one might expect from the description of the destruction of Tyre given by Ezekiel hundreds of years prior to Alexander’s actions. The mainland city was demolished and all her stones, timber, and soil were thrown into the midst of the sea.
Hmong doll
...
...
This aerial view of Tyre vividly shows the landbridge that Alexander created. Much silt and sand has accumulated over the years to widen the area of the original causeway.
In spite of the fact that the Tyrians were taken by surprise, they were not disheartened, because they did not believe that Alexander’s efforts would prevail. They continued to maintain supremacy on the sea, and harassed his workers from all sides from boats that were equipped with catapults, slingers, and archers.
These tactics were effective in killing many of Alexander’s men. But Alexander was not to be outdone. He gathered his own fleet of ships from nearby cities and was successful in neutralizing the Tyrian vessels’ effectiveness.
With the arrival of Alexander’s sea fleet, the work on the land bridge moved much more rapidly. Yet, when the construction of the bridge was nearing completion, a storm damaged a large section of the mole. Refusing to quit, Alexander rebuilt the damaged structure and continued to move forward.
In desperation, the Tyrians sent underwater divers to impede construction by attaching hooks to the rocks and trees of the causeway, causing much damage (Rufus, 4.3.10). Yet, these efforts by the Tyrians could not stop Alexander’s army and eventually the bridge spanned the distance from the mainland city to the island.
Huge siege machines bombarded the walls of Tyre. Siculus’ description of the fight is one of the most vivid accounts of a battle in ancient history (17.43-46).
Eventually the Tyrians were defeated, their walls penetrated, and Alexander’s forces entered the city and devastated it. Most of the men of Tyre were killed in continued fighting. Siculus recorded that approximately 2,000 of the men in Tyre who were of military age were crucified, and about 13,000 “non-combatants” were sold into slavery (17.46) [Others estimate the number even higher.]
In describing the devastation of the city by Alexander, Fleming wrote: “There was general slaughter in the streets and square. The Macedonians were enraged by the stubborn resistance of the city and especially by the recent murder of some of their countrymen; they therefore showed no mercy. A large part of the city was burned”).
The secular, historical record detailing Alexander’s destruction of Tyre coincides precisely with Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning what would happen to its building materials. As Ezekiel had predicted, the stones, timber, and soil of the mainland city were thrown into the midst of the sea in an unprecedented military maneuver.
For Ezekiel to have accurately “guessed” this situation would be to stretch the law of probability beyond the limits of absurdity. His acutely accurate representation of the facts remain as outstanding and amazing proof of the divine inspiration behind his message.
ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPHECY OF TYRE
One of the most disputed aspects concerning Ezekiel’s prophecy is the statement that the city of Tyre would “never be rebuilt” (26:14), and “be no more forever” (28:19). The skeptic points to modern day Tyre and suggests that these statements have failed to materialize.
Till stated: “In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine” (n.d.).
Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons.
In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.
From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it.
A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).
From this twelfth-century A.D. text, then, we learn that by that period of time the city known as ancient Tyre lay completely buried beneath the sea and a new city, most likely on some part of the island, had been erected.
George Davis, in his book Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible, included a picture of Syrian fishermen under which the following caption appeared: “Syrian fishermen hauling in their nets on the probable site of ancient Tyre, which perished as predicted by the prophet” (1931, p. 11). In his monumental work on the city of Tyre, Katzenstein mentioned several ancient sources that discussed the position of “Old Tyre.” He wrote: “Later this town was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline brought about by the dike and the alluvial deposits that changed Tyre into a peninsula” (1973, p. 15, emp. added).
It very likely is the case that the specific site of ancient Tyre has been buried by sand and water over the course of the last 2,500 years and is lost to modern knowledge.
That the prophet was speaking about the mainland city in reference to many aspects of his prophecy has much to commend it. It was to that mainland city that King Nebuchadnezzar directed most of his attention and destructive measures described in Ezekiel 26:8-11.
Furthermore, it was the mainland city that Alexander destroyed completely and cast into the sea to build his causeway to the island city. In addition, Benjamin Tudela’s quote corresponds precisely to the statement that the prophet made in the latter part of chapter 26:
“For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’” (26:19, emp. added). In addition, Katzenstein noted that the scholar H.L.
Ginsberg has suggested that the name “Great Tyre” was given to the mainland city, while the island city was designated as “Little Tyre” (p. 20). He further noted 2 Samuel 24:7, which mentions “the stronghold of Tyre,” and commented that this “may refer to “Old Tyre,” or the mainland city (p. 20).
Besides the idea that the bulk of the prophecy dealt with the mainland city, other possible solutions exist that would sufficiently meet the criteria that Tyre would “never be rebuilt” and would “be no more forever.” While it is true that a city does currently exist on the island, that city is not a “rebuilt” Tyre and has no real connection to the city condemned by Ezekiel other than its location.
If the history of Tyre is traced more completely, it becomes evident that even the island city of Tyre suffered complete destruction. Fleming noted that in approximately A.D. 193. “Tyre was plundered and burned after a fearful slaughter of her citizens” (1966, p. 73). Around the year 1085, the Egyptians “succeeded in reducing Tyre, which for many years had been practically independent” (p. 85).
Again, in about 1098, the Vizier of Egypt “entered the city and massacred a large number of people” (p. 88). In addition, the city was besieged in A.D. 1111 (p. 90), and again in April of 1124 (p. 95). Around the year 1155, the Egyptians entered Tyre, “made a raid with fire and sword...and carried off many prisoners and much plunder” (p. 101).
In addition to the military campaigns against the city, at least two major earthquakes pummeled the city, one of which “ruined the wall surrounding the city” (p. 115). And ultimately, in A.D. 1291, the Sultan Halil massacred the inhabitants of Tyre and subjected the city to utter ruin. “Houses, factories, temples, everything in the city was consigned to the sword, flame and ruin” (p. 122).
After this major defeat in 1291, Fleming cites several travel logs in which visitors to the city mention that citizens of the area in 1697 were “only a few poor wretches...subsisting chiefly upon fishing” (p. 124). In 1837, another earthquake pounded the remains of the city so that the streets were filled with debris from fallen houses to such a degree that they were impassable (p. 128).
Taking these events into consideration, it is obvious that many nations continued to come against the island city, that it was destroyed on numerous occasions, and that it became a place for fishing, fulfilling Ezekiel’s prediction about the spreading of nets.
Furthermore, it is evident that the multiple periods of destruction and rebuilding of the city have long since buried the Phoenician city that came under the condemnation of Ezekiel. The Columbia Encyclopedia, under its entry for Tyre, noted: “The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town” (“Tyre,” 2006, emp. added).
Concerning Tyre’s present condition, other sources have noted that “continuous settlement has restricted excavation to the Byzantine and Roman levels and information about the Phoenician town comes only from documentary sources” (“Ancient Tyre...,” n.d., emp. added). Another report confirmed, “Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times....
Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today’s city” (“Ancient Phoenicia,” n.d., emp. added). Thus, the only connection that the present town maintains with the ancient one in Ezekiel’s day is location, and the present buildings, streets, and other features are not “rebuilt” versions of the original city.
If Ezekiel’s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been “rebuilt.”
WHEN DID EZEKIEL PROPHESY?
Some have questioned the date of the composition of Ezekiel, due to the prophecy’s amazing accuracy in regard to its predictions concerning Tyre. Yet, the book of Ezekiel has much that lends itself to the idea that it was composed by Ezekiel during the time it claims to have been written. When did Ezekiel write his material? Kenny Barfield noted that, besides a belief that supernatural revelation is impossible,
No evidence supports the thesis that Ezekiel’s predictions were penned later than 400 B.C. Moreover, the book (Ezek. 1:1; 8:1; 33:1; 40:1-4) claims to have been composed by the prophet sometime in the sixth century, B.C., and Josephus attributes the book to the Hebrew prophet during the time in question (1995, p. 98).
In addition, Ezekiel was included in the Septuagint, which is the “earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures” available—a translation from Hebrew to Greek which was “executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era” (Septuagint, 1998,p. i).
Simon Greenleaf, the lawyer who is renowned for having played a major role in the founding of Harvard Law School and for having written the Treatise on the Law of Evidence, scrutinized several biblical documents in light of the procedures practiced in a court of law.
He noted one of the primary laws regarding ancient documents: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise” (1995, p. 16). He then noted that “this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings.
They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for” (pp. 16-17). Specifically in regard to Ezekiel, that is exactly the case.
If the prophet wrote it in the sixth century B.C. his work is exactly where it should be, translated in the Septuagint around the year 250 B.C., and noted to be from the proper time period by Josephus in approximately A.D. 90.
Furthermore, the scholarly world recognized the book’s authenticity and original date of composition virtually unanimously for almost 1,900 years. The eminently respected Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch, who wrote in the late 1800s, commented: “The genuineness of Ezekiel’s prophecies is, at the present day, unanimously recognized by all critics.
There is, moreover, no longer any doubt that the writing down and redaction of them in the volume which has been transmitted to us were the work of the prophet himself” (1982, 9:16). Indeed, Archer noted that no serious objection to the book’s integrity was even put forth until 1924 (1974, p. 369).
OBJECTIONS TO EZEKIEL’S AUTHENTICITY CONSIDERED
In regard to the objections that have been put forth, as Greenleaf noted, the burden of proof concerning the authenticity of Ezekiel lies with those who consider it inauthentic. Yet, far from proving such, they have put forth tenuous suggestions based on alleged internal inconsistencies.
First, these critics have proposed that the work could not have been by one man since some sections are filled with descriptions of doom and destruction, while others resound with hope and deliverance. This alleged inconsistency holds little weight, as Miller noted:
Of course, this viewpoint is based on purely subjective considerations. No inherent reason exists that forbids a single writer from presenting both emphases. In fact, virtually all the prophets of the Old Testament announce judgment upon God’s people and/or their neighbors and then follow that judgment sentence with words of future hope and restoration if repentance is forthcoming....
One must be in possession of a prejudicial perspective before approaching Scripture to come to such a conclusion (1995, p. 138).
The second objection to the integrity of Ezekiel has little more to commend it than the first. The second “proof” of the book’s alleged inauthentic nature revolves around the fact that in certain sections, Ezekiel seems to be an eyewitness to events that are happening in Palestine, while at the same time claiming to be writing from Babylon.
This objection can be dealt with quickly in a twofold manner. First, it would be possible, and very likely, that news would travel from the remnant of Israelites still free in Palestine to the captives in Babylon. Second, and more likely, if Ezekiel was guided by divine inspiration, he could have been given the ability to know events in Palestine that he did not see (see Miller, 1995, pp. 138-139).
Taking the prophecy of Tyre into account, it is clear that Ezekiel did possess/receive revelation that allowed him to report events that he had not seen and that were yet to take place.
A third objection to Ezekiel’s authenticity actually turns out not to be an objection at all, but rather a verification of Ezekiel’s integrity. W.F. Albright, the eminent and respected archaeologist, noted that one of C.C. Torrey’s “principle arguments against the authenticity of the prophecy” (the book of Ezekiel—KB) was the fact that Ezekiel dates things by the “years of Jehoiachin’s captivity” (1948, p. 164).
Supposedly, Jehoiachin would not have been referred to as “king” since he was captive in another land and no longer ruled in his own. Until about 1940, this argument seemed to possess some merit. But in that year, Babylonian tablets were brought to light that contained a cuneiform inscription giving the Babylonian description of Jehoiachin as king of Judah, even though he was in captivity (p. 165).
Albright concluded by saying: “The unusual dates in Ezekiel, so far from being indications that the book is not authentic, prove its authenticity in a most striking way” (p. 165).
Due to the fact that modern critics have failed to shoulder the burden of proof laid upon them to discredit Ezekiel’s integrity and authenticity, Smith rightly stated: “The critical studies of the Book of Ezekiel over the past fifty years or so have largely cancelled each other out.
The situation now is much the same as it was prior to 1924 (the work of Hoelscher) when the unity and integrity of the book were generally accepted by the critics” (Smith, 1979, p. 33). Miller correctly concluded: “All theories and speculations which call into question the unity and integrity of the book of Ezekiel are unconvincing....
The most convincing view is the traditional one that sees Ezekiel as the long recognized sixth century Hebrew prophet and author of the Old Testament book which bears his name” (1995, p. 139).
CONCLUSION
So accurate were the prophecies made by Ezekiel that skeptics were forced to suggest a later date for his writings. Yet, such a later date cannot be maintained, and the admission of Ezekiel’s accuracy stands as irrefutable evidence of the prophet’s divine inspiration.
With the penetrating gaze that can only be maintained by the Divine, God looked hundreds of years into the future and instructed Ezekiel precisely what to write so that in the centuries following the predictions, the fulfillment of every detail of the prophet’s words could be denied by no honest student of history.
“When the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent” (Jeremiah 28:9). Ezekiel’s accurate prophecy adds yet another piece of insurmountable evidence to the fact that “all Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. (1948), “The Old Testament and Archaeology,” Old Testament Commentary, ed. Herbert Alleman and Elmer Flack (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press).
“Ancient Phoenicia” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://gorp.away.com/gorp/location/africa/phonici5.htm.
“Ancient Tyre (Sour)” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Tyre.html.
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Barfield, Kenny (1995), The Prophet Motive (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Benjamin of Tudela (no date), “Traveling in Jerusalem,” [On-line], URL: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin.htm.
Benjamin of Tudela (1907), The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (New York, NY: The House of the Jewish Book), [On-line], URL: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin/ benjamin1.htm.
Davis, George T.B. (1931), Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Million Testaments Campaign).
Fleming, Wallace B. (1966), The History of Tyre (New York, NY: AMS Press).
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics).
Herodotus, (1972 reprint), The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt (London: Penguin).
Josephus, Flavius (1987), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: Against Apion, trans. William Whitson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Katzenstein, Jacob (1973), The History of Tyre (Jerusalem: The Schocken Institute for Jewish Research).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament—Ezekiel and Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Miller, Dave (1995), “Introduction to Ezekiel,” Major Lessons from the Major Prophets, ed. B.J. Clarke (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications).
Rufus, Quintus Curtius (2001), The History of Alexander, trans. John Yardley (New York, NY: Penguin).
Septuagint (1998 reprint), (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Siculus, Diodorus (1963), Library of History, trans. C. Bradford Welles (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Smith, James (1979), Ezekiel (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Till, Farrell (no date), “Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html.
“Tyre” (2006), Columbia Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=48355.
Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Inspiration of the Bible" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
Hearts are able to be broken for many reasons, not just for love. Hearts really gets broken
"Brain Reacts To Heartbreak Same As Physical Pain"
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/220427.php#1
What helps? Analyzing and focusing to bad sides. If your crush is just a crush and you don't really know her then you can make up bad traits as well.
People love fantazying and most common are celebrity fantasies. And guys around the world knows they cannot have their celebrity crushes. People just like to build a perfect fictive character to have some light and orgasms on their lives.
Teenagers are practising their crushing and sex on their private peace in their imagination with their celebrity crushes. Real people are less adorable and people divorce a lot. Therefore only fantazying is eternal ;)
Yes, most songs and movies repeats the same forms. Of course people are build by the same stuff and peoples thoughts and behaviour is mostly same. Then for some reason media wants to draw certain pictures of relationships time to time as BDSM/too lazy to google grey was massively brought everywhere.
Then therapists got men who said they cannot fullfill this insanity and women who said they cannot take that insanity... It is mostly what is given to us. I am not a fan of songs because of that. Of course there is songs which hit straight to the own situations but mostly they are someone elses thoughts.
Same as books and movies and movies made by books. We see books in different ways and everything can be "wrong" in a movie. This is with people also, someones trash is someones treasure.
The less you are focusing in outlooks the bigger changes is to find your loved one. The less perfect nature you are looking for the bigger changes you have to love someone and have non-divorcing relationship. The more you want the more you lose, many people live their lives alone meanwhile seeking perfectness which does not exist.
Those who meet someone are ruining their ships by fighting toalet paper roll up or downs, toothpaste squeesings and how much wrinkles or fat they have more than when they met.. These are not things in love and people ruin their relationships because they don't think via love.
Always think via love, always. What it means to your love if... So if that will ruin your love then say or do something which keeps your love alive instead destroying it.
http://vietrealm.com/index.php?topic=36265.msg103961;topicseen#new
Heinecke is the chairman and CEO of hospitality group Minor International, the company he founded as a cleaning business when he was 17 — still a minor — four years after relocating to Bangkok with his family.
Throughout his 20s and 30s, it evolved into one of Thailand’s leading hospitality chains, and Heinecke said he felt he owed it to the country that “adopted” him to show his dedication to doing business there. By giving up his U.S. citizenship, Heinecke relinquished certain benefits afforded to U.S. nationals, such as his right to vote in U.S. elections and enjoy unrestricted travel into the country. But he also exempted himself from U.S. tax implications.
“You know, we’ve had so much good support from whether the Thai banks or Thai business people or the community in general,” said Heinecke. “They’ve embraced us and embraced our company and, you know, we’re proud to be a Thai company.”
Committing to working in an emerging economy was not without its challenges: Heinecke’s hotel chain has battled tsunamis, the Asian financial crisis and near-bankruptcy. But it also proved to be a savvy business move, which helped him win favor over other major international corporations.
Eight years after becoming a naturalized Thai citizen in 1991, Heinecke was faced with one of his toughest business negotiations; a takeover bid by Goldman Sachs of the Anantara Siam, a heritage hotel in which Minor International owned a minority stake. Ultimately, Heinecke managed to thwart the bid because of the reputation he’d built as a trusted local businessman and the relationships he’d cultivated with the business arms of the Thai royal family.
Minor International has since gone on to expand beyond Thailand, catapulting Heinecke’s net worth to $1.9 billion and positioning him as Thailand’s 17th wealthiest person, according to Forbes’ rich list. But he said demonstrating that commitment all those years ago stood him in good stead to build trust and develop one of the Asia Pacific region’s largest hospitality and leisure groups.
“I’d like to hope that some of my Thai friends are proud that I’m Thai — even if I’m only Thai by citizenship,” said Heinecke.
Of course, not everyone has the option, nor the need, to do something as radical as relinquish their citizenship. However, Heinecke said the ability to show commitment, in any of its many forms, has been one of the most important contributors to the success of his 52-year-old career — and, to this day, it continues to be one of the key traits he looks for in his team of almost 100,000 employees.
“You’ve got to be totally committed to what you’re doing, you’ve got to be willing to sacrifice everything in the interest of what your vision or what your interest is,” he said. “If you’re not, then you shouldn’t be pursuing it.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/bill-heinecke-gave-up-us-citizenship-to-become-a-thailand-billionaire.html
The Great Wall of China is the longest defensive wall in the world, stretching along northwest China. Seddin is 6,000 kilometers in length, with its collapsed parts. Today, the standing part is the 2,500 kilometer-long embankment from the Ming Dynasty era.
Historians have different opinions about the reason of the wall built between 2121 BC and 608 BC. The best known is defending against the attack of Mongol and Turkish tribes against China from the north.
he Great Wall of China snakes along a ridge in front of me, its towers and ramparts creating a panorama that could have been lifted from a Ming dynasty scroll. I should be enjoying the view, but I'm focused instead on the feet of my guide, Sun Zhenyuan.
Clambering behind him across the rocks, I can't help but marvel at his footwear. He is wearing cloth slippers with wafer-thin rubber soles, better suited to tai chi than a trek along a mountainous section of the wall.
Sun, a 59-year-old farmer turned preservationist, is conducting a daily reconnaissance along a crumbling 16th-century stretch of the wall overlooking his home, Dongjiakou village, in eastern Hebei Province.
We stand nearly 4,000 twisting miles from where the Great Wall begins in China's western deserts—and only 40 miles from where it plunges into the Bohai Sea, the innermost gulf of the Yellow Sea on the coast of northeast China. Only 170 miles distant, but a world away, lies Beijing, where seven million spectators are about to converge for the Summer Olympics. (The massive earthquake that hit southern China in May did not damage the wall, although tremors could be felt on sections of it near Beijing.)
Hiking toward a watchtower on the ridge above us, Sun sets a brisk pace, stopping only to check his slippers' fraying seams. "They cost only ten yuan [$1.40]," he says, "but I wear out a pair every two weeks."
I do a quick calculation: over the past decade, Sun must have burned through some 260 pairs of shoes as he's carried out his crusade to protect one of China's greatest treasures—and to preserve his family's honor. Twenty-one generations ago, in the mid-1500s, Sun's ancestors arrived at this hilly outpost wearing military uniforms (and, presumably, sturdier footwear). His forebears, he says, were officers in the Ming imperial army, part of a contingent that came from southern China to shore up one of the wall's most vulnerable sections.
Under the command of General Qi Jiguang, they added to an earlier stone and earthen barrier, erected nearly two centuries before at the beginning of the Ming dynasty.
Qi Jiguang also added a new feature—watchtowers—at every peak, trough and turn. The towers, built between 1569 and 1573, enabled troops to shelter in secure outposts on the wall itself as they awaited Mongol attacks.
Even more vitally, the towers also functioned as sophisticated signaling stations, enabling the Ming army to mitigate the wall's most impressive, but daunting, feature: its staggering length. As we near the top of the ridge, Sun quickens his pace. The Great Wall looms directly above us, a 30-foot-high face of rough-hewed stone topped by a two-story watchtower.
When we reach the tower, he points at the Chinese characters carved above the arched doorway, which translate to Sunjialou, or Sun Family Tower. "I see this as a family treasure, not just a national treasure," Sun says. "If you had an old house that people were damaging, wouldn't you want to protect it?"
He gazes toward the horizon. As he conjures up the dangers that Ming soldiers once faced, the past and present seem to intertwine. "Where we're standing is the edge of the world," he says. "Behind us is China. Out there"—he gestures toward craggy cliffs to the north—"the land of the barbarians."
Few cultural landmarks symbolize the sweep of a nation's history more powerfully than the Great Wall of China. Constructed by a succession of imperial dynasties over 2,000 years, the network of barriers, towers and fortifications expanded over the centuries, defining and defending the outer limits of Chinese civilization.
At the height of its importance during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), the Great Wall is believed to have extended some 4,000 miles, the distance from New York to Milan.
Today, however, China's most iconic monument is under assault by both man and nature. No one knows just how much of the wall has already been lost. Chinese experts estimate that more than two-thirds may have been damaged or destroyed, while the rest remains under siege.
"The Great Wall is a miracle, a cultural achievement not just for China but for humanity," says Dong Yaohui, president of the China Great Wall Society. "If we let it get damaged beyond repair in just one or two generations, it will be our lasting shame."
The barbarians, of course, have changed. Gone are the invading Tatars (who broke through the Great Wall in 1550), Mongols (whose raids kept Sun's ancestors occupied) and Manchus (who poured through uncontested in 1644). Today's threats come from reckless tourists, opportunistic developers, an indifferent public and the ravages of nature.
Taken together, these forces—largely byproducts of China's economic boom—imperil the wall, from its tamped-earth ramparts in the western deserts to its majestic stone fortifications spanning the forested hills north of Beijing, near Badaling, where several million tourists converge each year.
From its origins under the first emperor in the third century B.C., the Great Wall has never been a single barrier, as early Western accounts claimed. Rather, it was an overlapping maze of ramparts and towers that was unified only during frenzied Ming dynasty construction, beginning in the late 1300s.
As a defense system, the wall ultimately failed, not because of intrinsic design flaws but because of the internal weaknesses—corruption, cowardice, infighting—of various imperial regimes.
For three centuries after the Ming dynasty collapsed, Chinese intellectuals tended to view the wall as a colossal waste of lives and resources that testified less to the nation's strength than to a crippling sense of insecurity.
In the 1960s, Mao Zedong's Red Guards carried this disdain to revolutionary excess, destroying sections of an ancient monument perceived as a feudal relic.
Nevertheless, the Great Wall has endured as a symbol of national identity, sustained in no small part by successive waves of foreigners who have celebrated its splendors—and perpetuated its myths. Among the most persistent fallacies is that it is the only man-made structure visible from space. (In fact, one can make out a number of other landmarks, including the pyramids.
The wall, according to a recent Scientific American report, is visible only "from low orbit under a specific set of weather and lighting conditions.") Mao's reformist successor, Deng Xiaoping, understood the wall's iconic value. "Love China, Restore the Great Wall," he declared in 1984, initiating a repair and reconstruction campaign along the wall north of Beijing.
Perhaps Deng sensed that the nation he hoped to build into a superpower needed to reclaim the legacy of a China whose ingenuity had built one of the world's greatest wonders.
Today, the ancient monument is caught in contemporary China's contradictions, in which a nascent impulse to preserve the past confronts a headlong rush toward the future.
Curious to observe this collision up close, I recently walked along two stretches of the Ming-era wall, separated by a thousand miles—the stone ramparts undulating through the hills near Sun's home in eastern Hebei Province and an earthen barrier that cuts across the plains of Ningxia in the west.
Even along these relatively well-preserved sections, threats to the wall—whether by nature or neglect, by reckless industrial expansion or profit-hungry tour operators—pose daunting challenges.
Yet a small but increasingly vocal group of cultural preservationists act as defenders of the Great Wall. Some, like Sun, patrol its ramparts.
Others have pushed the government to enact new laws and have initiated a comprehensive, ten-year GPS survey that may reveal exactly how long the Great Wall once was—and how much of it has been lost.
In northwest China's Ningxia region, on a barren desert hilltop, a local shepherd, Ding Shangyi, and I gaze out at a scene of austere beauty. The ocher-colored wall below us, constructed of tamped earth instead of stone, lacks the undulations and crenelations that define the eastern sections.
But here, a simpler wall curves along the western flank of the Helan Mountains, extending across a rocky moonscape to the far horizon. For the Ming dynasty, this was the frontier, the end of the world—and it still feels that way.
Ding, 52, lives alone in the shadow of the wall near Sanguankou Pass. He corrals his 700 sheep at night in a pen that abuts the 30-foot-tall barrier. Centuries of erosion have rounded the wall's edges and pockmarked its sides, making it seem less a monumental achievement than a kind of giant sponge laid across gravelly terrain.
Although Ding has no idea of the wall's age—"a hundred years old," Ding guesses, off by about three and a half centuries—he reckons correctly that it was meant to "repel the Mongols."
From our hilltop, Ding and I can make out the remnants of a 40-foot-high tower on the flats below Sanguankou. Relying on observation sites like this one, soldiers transmitted signals from the front lines back to the military command.
Employing smoke by day and fire at night, they could send messages down the line at a rate of 620 miles per day—or about 26 miles per hour, faster than a man on horseback.
According to Cheng Dalin, a 66-year-old photographer and a leading authority on the wall, the signals also conveyed the degree of threat: an incursion of 100 men required one lighted beacon and a round of cannon fire, he says, while 5,000 men merited five plumes of smoke and five cannon shots.
The tallest, straightest columns of smoke were produced by wolf dung, which explains why, even today, the outbreak of war is described in literary Chinese as "a rash of wolf smoke across the land."
Nowhere are threats to the wall more evident than in Ningxia. The most relentless enemy is desertification—a scourge that began with construction of the Great Wall itself. Imperial policy decreed that grass and trees be torched within 60 miles of the wall, depriving enemies of the element of surprise.
Inside the wall, the cleared land was used for crops to sustain soldiers. By the middle of the Ming dynasty, 2.8 million acres of forest had been converted to farmland. The result? "An environmental disaster," says Cheng.
Today, with the added pressures of global warming, overgrazing and unwise agricultural policies, China's northern desert is expanding at an alarming rate, devouring approximately one million acres of grassland annually.
The Great Wall stands in its path. Shifting sands may occasionally expose a long-buried section—as happened in Ningxia in 2002—but for the most part, they do far more harm than good. Rising dunes swallow entire stretches of wall; fierce desert winds shear off its top and sides like a sandblaster.
Here, along the flanks of the Helan Mountains, water, ironically enough, is the greatest threat. Flash floods run off denuded highlands, gouging out the wall's base and causing upper levels to teeter and collapse.
At Sanguankou Pass, two large gaps have been blasted through the wall, one for a highway linking Ningxia to Inner Mongolia—the wall here marks the border—and the other for a quarry operated by a state-owned gravel company.
Trucks rumble through the breach every few minutes, picking up loads of rock destined to pave Ningxia's roads. Less than a mile away, wild horses lope along the wall, while Ding's sheep forage for roots on rocky hills.
The plundering of the Great Wall, once fed by poverty, is now fueled by progress. In the early days of the People's Republic, in the 1950s, peasants pilfered tamped earth from the ramparts to replenish their fields, and stones to build houses. (I recently visited families in the Ningxia town of Yanchi who still live in caves dug out of the wall during the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76.)
Two decades of economic growth have turned small-scale damage into major destruction. In Shizuishan, a heavily polluted industrial city along the Yellow River in northern Ningxia, the wall has collapsed because of erosion—even as the Great Wall Industrial Park thrives next door.
Elsewhere in Ningxia, construction of a paper mill in Zhongwei and a petrochemical factory in Yanchi has destroyed sections of the wall.
Regulations enacted in late 2006—focusing on protecting the Great Wall in its entirety—were intended to curb such abuses. Damaging the wall is now a criminal offense. Anyone caught bulldozing sections or conducting all-night raves on its ramparts—two of many indignities the wall has suffered—now faces fines.
The laws, however, contain no provisions for extra personnel or funds. According to Dong Yaohui, president of the China Great Wall Society, "The problem is not lack of laws, but failure to put them into practice."
Enforcement is especially difficult in Ningxia, where a vast, 900-mile-long network of walls is overseen by a cultural heritage bureau with only three employees. On a recent visit to the region, Cheng Dalin investigated several violations of the new regulations and recommended penalties against three companies that had blasted holes in the wall.
But even if the fines were paid—and it's not clear that they were—his intervention came too late. The wall in those three areas had already been destroyed.
Back on the hilltop, I ask Ding if watching the wall's slow disintegration provokes a sense of loss. He shrugs and offers me a piece of guoba, the crust of scorched rice scraped from the bottom of a pot. Unlike Sun, my guide in Hebei, Ding confesses that he has no special feeling for the wall. He has lived in a mud-brick shack on its Inner Mongolian side for three years.
Even in the wall's deteriorated condition, it shields him from desert winds and provides his sheep with shelter. So Ding treats it as nothing more, or less, than a welcome feature in an unforgiving environment. We sit in silence for a minute, listening to the sound of sheep ripping up the last shoots of grass on these rocky hills.
This entire area may be desert soon, and the wall will be more vulnerable than ever. It's a prospect that doesn't bother Ding. "The Great Wall was built for war," he says. "What's it good for now?"
A week later and a thousand miles away in Shandong Province, I stare at a section of wall zig-zagging up a mountain. From battlements to watchtowers, the structure looks much like the Ming wall at Badaling.
On closer inspection, however, the wall here, near the village of Hetouying, is made not of stone but of concrete grooved to mimic stone. The local Communist Party secretary who oversaw the project from 1999 on must have figured that visitors would want a wall like the real thing at Badaling. (A modest ancient wall, constructed here 2,000 years before the Ming, was covered over.)
But there are no visitors; the silence is broken only when a caretaker arrives to unlock the gate. A 62-year-old retired factory worker, Mr. Fu—he gives only his surname—waives the 30-cent entrance fee. I climb the wall to the top of the ridge, where I'm greeted by two stone lions and a 40-foot-tall statue of Guanyin, the Buddhist goddess of mercy.
When I return, Mr. Fu is waiting to tell me just how little mercy the villagers have received. Not long after factories usurped their farmland a decade ago, he says, the party secretary persuaded them to invest in the reproduction wall.
Mr. Fu lost his savings. "It was a waste of money," he says, adding that I'm the first tourist to visit in months. "Officials talk about protecting the Great Wall, but they just want to make money from tourism."
Certainly the Great Wall is big business. At Badaling, visitors can buy Mao T-shirts, have their photo taken on a camel or sip a latte at Starbucks—before even setting foot on the wall. Half an hour away, at Mutianyu, sightseers don't even have to walk at all. After being disgorged from tour buses, they can ride to the top of the wall in a cable car.
In 2006 golfers promoting the Johnnie Walker Classic teed off from the wall at Juyongguan Pass outside Beijing. And last year the French-owned fashion house Fendi transformed the ramparts into a catwalk for the Great Wall's first couture extravaganza, a media-saturated event that offended traditionalists.
"Too often," says Dong Yaohui, of the China Great Wall Society, "people see only the exploitable value of the wall and not its historical value."
The Chinese government has vowed to restrict commercialization, banning mercantile activities within a 330-foot radius of the wall and requiring wall-related revenue to be funneled into preservation. But pressure to turn the wall into a cash-generating commodity is powerful.
Two years ago, a melee broke out along the wall on the border between Hebei and Beijing, as officials from both sides traded punches over who could charge tourist fees; five people were injured.
More damaging than fists, though, have been construction crews that have rebuilt the wall at various points—including a site near the city of Jinan where fieldstone was replaced by bathroom tiles.
According to independent scholar David Spindler, an American who has studied the Ming-era wall since 2002, "reckless restoration is the greatest danger."
The Great Wall is rendered even more vulnerable by a paucity of scholarship. Spindler is an exception. There is not a single Chinese academic—indeed, not a scholar at any university in the world—who specializes in the Great Wall; academia has largely avoided a subject that spans so many centuries and disciplines—from history and politics to archaeology and architecture.
As a result, some of the monument's most basic facts, from its length to details of its construction, are unknown. "What exactly is the Great Wall?" asks He Shuzhong, founder and chairman of the Beijing Cultural Heritage Protection Center (CHP), a nongovernmental organization. "Nobody knows exactly where it begins or ends. Nobody can say what its real condition is."
That gap in knowledge may soon be closing. Two years ago, the Chinese government launched an ambitious ten-year survey to determine the wall's precise length and assess its condition. Thirty years ago, a preliminary survey team relied on little more than tape measures and string; today, researchers are using GPS and imaging technology.
"This measuring is fundamental," says William Lindesay, a British preservationist who heads the Beijing-based International Friends of the Great Wall. "Only when we know exactly what is left of the Great Wall can we begin to understand how it might be saved."
As Sun Zhenyuan and I duck through the arched doorway of his family watchtower, his pride turns to dismay. Fresh graffiti scars the stone walls. Beer bottles and food wrappers cover the floor. This kind of defilement occurs increasingly, as day-trippers drive from Beijing to picnic on the wall. In this case, Sun believes he knows who the culprits are.
At the trail head, we had passed two obviously inebriated men, expensively attired, staggering down from the wall with companions who appeared to be wives or girlfriends toward a parked Audi sedan. "Maybe they have a lot of money," Sun says, "but they have no culture."
In many villages along the wall, especially in the hills northeast of Beijing, inhabitants claim descent from soldiers who once served there. Sun believes his ancestral roots in the region originated in an unusual policy shift that occurred nearly 450 years ago, when Ming General Qi Jiguang, trying to stem massive desertions, allowed soldiers to bring wives and children to the frontlines.
Local commanders were assigned to different towers, which their families treated with proprietary pride. Today, the six towers along the ridge above Dongjiakou bear surnames shared by nearly all the village's 122 families: Sun, Chen, Geng, Li, Zhao and Zhang.
Sun began his preservationist crusade almost by accident a decade ago. As he trekked along the wall in search of medicinal plants, he often quarreled with scorpion hunters who were ripping stones from the wall to get at their prey (used in the preparation of traditional medicines). He also confronted shepherds who allowed their herds to trample the ramparts.
Sun's patrols continued for eight years before the Beijing Cultural Heritage Protection Center began sponsoring his work in 2004. CHP chairman He Shuzhong hopes to turn Sun's lonely quest into a full-fledged movement. "What we need is an army of Mr. Suns," says He. "If there were 5,000 or 10,000 like him, the Great Wall would be very well protected."
Perhaps the greatest challenge lies in the fact that the wall extends for long stretches through sparsely populated regions, such as Ningxia, where few inhabitants feel any connection to it—or have a stake in its survival.
Some peasants I met in Ningxia denied that the tamped-earth barrier running past their village was part of the Great Wall, insisting that it looked nothing like the crenelated stone fortifications of Badaling they've seen on television.
And a Chinese survey conducted in 2006 found that only 28 percent of respondents thought the Great Wall needed to be protected. "It's still difficult to talk about cultural heritage in China," says He, "to tell people that this is their own responsibility, that this should give them pride."
Dongjiakou is one of the few places where protection efforts are taking hold. When the local Funin County government took over the CHP program two years ago, it recruited 18 local residents to help Sun patrol the wall. Preservation initiatives like his, the government believes, could help boost the sagging fortunes of rural villages by attracting tourists who want to experience the "wild wall."
As leader of his local group, Sun is paid about $120 per year; others receive a bit less. Sun is confident that his family legacy will continue into the 22nd generation: his teenage nephew now joins him on his outings.
From the entrance to the Sun Family Tower, we hear footsteps and wheezing. A couple of tourists—an overweight teenage boy and his underweight girlfriend—climb the last steps onto the ramparts.
Sun flashes a government-issued license and informs them that he is, in effect, the constable of the Great Wall. "Don't make any graffiti, don't disturb any stones and don't leave any trash behind," he says.
"I have the authority to fine you if you violate any of these rules." The couple nods solemnly. As they walk away, Sun calls after them: "Always remember the words of Chairman Deng Xiaoping: ‘Love China, Restore the Great Wall!'"
As Sun cleans the trash from his family's watchtower, he spies a glint of metal on the ground. It's a set of car keys: the black leather ring is imprinted with the word "Audi." Under normal circumstances, Sun would hurry down the mountain to deliver the keys to their owners.
This time, however, he'll wait for the culprits to hike back up, looking for the keys—and then deliver a stern lecture about showing proper respect for China's greatest cultural monument. Flashing a mischievous smile, he slides the keys into the pocket of his Mao jacket. It's one small victory over the barbarians at the gate.
Brook Larmer, formerly the Shanghai bureau chief for Newsweek, is a freelance writer who lives in Bangkok, Thailand. Photographer Mark Leong is based in Beijing.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-great-wall-of-china-is-under-siege-825452/
Dang Van Cau has spent most of his working life diving into murky waters and canals of Saigon to catch red worms. The resident of Nha Be is not the only one pursuing this unusual livelihood.
Those living near the Go Cong Canal in District 9 occasionally see a plastic basin floating in the middle of the pitch-black river, surrounded with hundreds of tiny white water bubbles. That basin is the inseparable possession of Dang Van Cau, one that he has used to catch red worms for the last 30 years.
Cau, 50, is one of several dozen people who dive into rivers, their branches and canals in Ho Chi Minh City and neighboring provinces such as Dong Nai and Binh Duong to catch the red worms. This work fetches around VND6 million ($258.98) per month. The red worms are used as food by those dealing with ornamental fish and fingerlings.
The only "protective gear" that Cau has is a hat his wife presented him last year. The cloth cap shields him from the rain and sun on the shore; and prevents hair from getting in his eyes every time he emerges out of the black waters to catch his breath. Cau cannot count how many hats have been damaged or lost over more than 3 decades.
"This job is labor-intensive, but it’s flexible. You can stop working when you feel tired. No one manages your time", Cau said as he was gasped for breath, coming back after a dive to the bottom of the pitch-black canal waters.
Despite how black the waters are, he is not as concerned about the pollution as he is about other objects that he has to encounter on the canal bed, including knives, machetes, pieces of broken glasses and even human corpses.
Along with the plastic basin, the net racket is a tool that Cau uses to scoop and get red worms from under the water. "One must scratch the mud on the surface and when the racket feels heavy, you lift it up and shake it so that the mud goes away... then you put the red worms into the basin."
Later Cau puts the red worms into plastic bottles. Each worm bottle can sell for VND17.000 ($0.73). Cau says that a red worm raker could catch an equivalent of 50 worm bottles every day in the good old days.
In the last few years, the waters have become so polluted that even the red worms are not able to survive. The number of worms has decreased by half, he estimates. "This job depends on luck, some days you can easily earn VND2-3 million ($86.32-129.48), and on other days, you can't get enough money to pay for gas (for the motorbike)."
"Sometimes we describe this job as exchanging your own blood for money. Many times my feet and legs and arms have been cut by needles or pieces of glasses thrown into the river," Cau said as he washed his scarred feet before having lunch.
Cau’s family lives in a temporarily shelter erected on the land of a real estate project in Nha Be District. After 10 p.m., he fixes the canvas shielding the house. "In the past, my wife and I had a decent house nearby. After she fell sick, we had to sell it to pay the medical bills," he said. "We stay here for now, but I am not sure how long can it last."
Cau and his wife have two children, a son who works as a bricklayer in Thu Duc District, and a married daughter who is works in Binh Duong. Every day, they take care of their grandkids in the temporary house. Cau patches the net of the racket used to rake worms. Photo by VnExpress/Huu Khoa. Cau patches the net of the racket used to rake worms.- "I have lung and joint problems, and I have been unable to walk for the last 10 years. Earlier, both of us caught red worms every day. Now, he has to work alone to support the family," said Le Thi Van, 41, Cau's wife. "Even though the work is hard, he doesn’t seem to mind. He really cares about me, our children and grandchildren."
"In this job, one has to keep an eye on the water level to work, so the time is not fixed. Sometimes I work from 1-2 a.m., sometimes it is 4-5 p.m. I go around to rivers and canals in the city and surrounding provinces," Cau said as he steered his motorboat on the Sai Gon River, heading to Dong Nai Province, northeast of Ho Chi Minh City.
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/life/trend/red-worms-lure-saigon-divers-into-pitch-black-waters-4028263.html
The Great Wall of China was built on the borders of the land belonging to the Han (majority Chinese) people and the northern nomadic tribes. Its purpose was to prevent invasions from the nomadic tribes to the Central Plain of China. Below is how the soldiers stationed on the Great Wall defended against their enemies.
The Design of the Wall Made It a Strong Defense System - The average height of the Great Wall is 7.8 meters but it reaches about 14 meters in some sections. The width of the wall is about 4 to 5 meters. Its height and width make it very solid and this prevented any enemies from intruding.
Most sections of the Great Wall were built on mountain ridges. This would exhaust an enemy army's effective strength by the time they reached the wall. The Great Wall itself was solid enough, but its successful defense relied on the soldiers who guarded it day and night. The soldiers had different jobs to do at each stage of a war.
The soldiers were stationed in the nearby fields and patrolled on the Great Wall to look out for enemy movement. When they saw the enemy approach, the soldiers on a beacon tower lit a 'wolf fire' (they burned wolf dung to make a fire/smoke signal).
Soldiers at neighboring towers could see the smoke/fire during the day/ night, alerting the troops that the enemy was coming and a battle was about to start. The soldiers on each watchtower had good lines of sight on the wall in between and its approach. There were about 25,000 towers on the Great Wall in total.
When they saw the enemy approaching the Great Wall, the archers on the wall would get ready with arrows to shoot the enemy soldiers from the nocks (arrow holes). This method efficiently reduced the number of defending soldiers who were wounded, and greatly reduced the enemy offensive before they got near the wall.
Despite the use of archery, with the use of shields, enemy soldiers were still able to get close to the wall. At this point, the troops on the wall would roll huge stones off the wall to crush and destroy their enemies and their ladders, and prevent them from climbing the wall.
The horse wall on the Great WallThe horse wall on the Great Wall - If enemies managed to get onto the wall, the defensive cavalry ensured it was difficult for them to move. Some sections of the Great Wall were wide enough for four horses to ride abreast.
When the defending soldiers retreated to the towers, cavalry could charge into the attackers. The horse wall provided cover for the soldiers, slowing the enemy assault, and giving time for more defenders to arrive.
While slowing an enemy attack with a cavalry charge and more arrow fire from adjacent towers, reinforcements would be called to defend a breach. The Great Wall was used for communication and rapid redeployment of a garrison. It was much quicker to travel along the wall top than on the surrounding mountain side.
Then the reinforced defenders would sally out from the watchtowers to retake a section of wall, squeezing the enemy between two shield walls. Once the wall was retaken, any enemy who made it over or through were isolated and trapped within China, and could be relatively easily overpowered.
https://www.chinahighlights.com/greatwall/great-wall-defense.htm
A visit to Harrods one fateful day in 1969 had been prompted by simple curiosity. As two young Australians newly arrived in England, Ace [Bourke] and I overheard an amazing story about two lion cubs that had just joined the zoo at Harrods department store. (These were the days before the Endangered Species Act of 1976, when it was perfectly legal for exotic creatures to be sold to the public).
When we saw Christian the cub for sale that day, we were smitten. For 250 guineas (£3,000 in today’s money) Christian was ours. And so began a wonderful, rollercoaster life with him. For a year, Christian lived happily with Ace and I at a furniture shop called Sophistocat on London’s King’s Road.
Given the run of the lower floor of the shop, Christian fitted in like any pet cat would with his own litter tray, his favourite toys and a pampered diet.
As well as being very affectionate, Christian was such an intelligent animal with a great sense of humour, always interested in everything around him. Fleet Street photographer Derek Cattani became a regular visitor photographing Christian’s Chelsea life including the gorgeous photos shown in the book.
As word spread that there was a lion living in the shop, other well-known visitors from the world of showbusiness began turning up to see him. These included the actors Corin Redgrave, Diana Rigg and Mia Farrow. Not surprisingly, Christian grew rapidly. We had to come to terms with the fact that, heartbreakingly, he would soon be too big and needed a new home. So, in 1970 we made the trip to Kenya in Africa, where Christian was to be released back into the wild with the help of George Adamson, the conservationist and author whose book inspired the Born Free film.
" It was a wonderful opportunity, but it was a challenge for us, too. Could our beloved Christian, a fifth-generation captivity-bred lion, adapt to life in the wild? And if he did, would he survive? "
George Adamson was in Nairobi to meet us. This was the man who had rehabilitated the famous Elsa the lioness, and in whose hands Christian’s destiny now lay. Derek Cattani joined us to document the first stage of Christian’s rehabilitation. Together we set off for the Kora reserve 250 miles to the north – Christian’s new home.
Here Christian was introduced to other lions, including a huge full-sized beast called Boy, who quickly made it clear to the Christian that he was the boss. Luckily, even though he was a domesticated lion, Christian’s wild instincts kicked in and he simply rolled on his belly whenever Boy came near which was the right etiquette to do before an older lion.
After a few days together in Africa, we said a sad goodbye to the lion cub that had become our best friend. But we had all learnt in that time what we most needed to know: that deep down, our young lion was wild at heart. Everything was going to be all right. We had made the right decision.
In the summer of 1971, a year after Christian had become a wild animal, Ace and I returned to Kora in an attempt to find him and see how he was adapting. He had taken to life in the wild magnificently and was now the head of a small pride of lions. George identified a spot for a reunion.
As Christian crested the brow of the hill he stopped and stared at us. Then, he started to walk slowly down the hill towards us. We called him and the moment he heard our voices Christian began to run down the hillside, grunting with excitement. A 300-pound lion was now bounding towards us at about 20 miles an hour.
Linskee
The film clip of our emotional reunion has now been viewed by over 100 million people on YouTube. When Ace and I took Christian to Kenya in 1970, there were an estimated 400,000 lions in Africa. Today there are fewer than 20,000. As the threat to Africa’s lions increases, we have so much to be grateful to Christian for. His presence continues to be felt.
The video continues to be viewed, he continues to garner ever more fans and I can only hope and pray that it will continue to help raise interest and awareness among a new generation of viewers, and the fight to save Christian’s descendants will gain momentum. There could be no better legacy from a remarkable animal who continues to hold a unique place in our hearts.
https://www.bigissue.com/culture/the-legacy-of-christian-the-lion-and-the-fight-to-protect-his-descendants/
Christian was born in Ilfracombe Zoo, Devon in August 1969; he was part of a litter that had been rejected by their mother. The litter was hand reared by the zoo keepers, but when Christian and his sister were a few months old, they were sold to Harrod’s, the prestigious department store in London.
John Rendall and Ace Bourke, had just come over from Australia and were working in London at an antique pine furniture shop, called Sophistocat.
When they were exploring London they visited Harrod’s, and saw this small lion cub in the window. With no further thought, they bought the cub and took him home to their flat in Chelsea.They named the cub Christian, as an irony of Christians being fed to the lions.
They made a home for Christian in the basement of the Antique shop, and they lived above the shop. Both having grown up with pets, John and Ace looked after Christian and treated him as a giant pet, part of the family. There are some iconic photos of Christian gadding around London in an open topped car, but in general Christian’s life was stable with walks in the local area a daily occurrence.
Christian had a gentle and gregarious temperament, but as all babies do, Christian started to get bigger and was becoming more difficult to control in the London environment. Fortunately, one day Virginia McKenna and Bill Travers, actors from the movie “Born Free”, by chance visited Sophistocat Antique Shop and saw Christian.
They were enchanted by Christian and suggested that Ace and John contact George Adamson to rehabilitate Christian back into the wild, and to set him free.
Ace and John hadn’t actually thought of this option, but knew that as a fully grown lion, Christian wouldn’t be able to stay in London. So they contacted George Adamson, who put the wheels in motion with Kenyan Wildlife Services to introduce Christian to Africa.
It took months for the bureaucratic wheels to turn in Kenya and for permission to be granted allowing Christian to travel there. In the meantime, Ace and John gave up their jobs in London and moved into a caravan, near to Bill Travers home 30 miles outside of London, out in the countryside. Here there was more space for Christian to exercise and move around in.
There was a lot of work needed to be done to get, the nearly one year old Christian, ready for the wilds of Africa, as on arrival to the English countryside he was even scared of a scarecrow, and showed very little aggression.
Virginia and Bill built a large compound on their grounds for Christian, this was the closest that he had ever been to the “wilds”. Christian settled down well and seemed to enjoy being outside and investigating his surroundings.
Ace and John knew that these times with Christian were special and maybe their last, so they wanted to spend as much time with him as possible. Christian’s lion instincts were surfacing, but after four months of constant attention with Ace and John a strong bond was being forged. As Ace Bourke says in an interview; “He was dependant on us, but he also loved us, as we were the closest things to him”.
Meanwhile in Kora Nature Reserve, Kenya, George Adamson was readying his camp to accept Christian. George was already working with wild lions that needed rehabilitation, and had a small pride that he wanted Christian to be introduced to.
After a long flight, Christian still had to travel another 200 miles in the African bush to finally arrive at Kora Nature Reserve. It must of been such a shock for Christian to suddenly find himself in such a different environment.
Ace and John travelled with him to Kenya. His first night in the Kenyan bush was ignominious, as Christian still expected his creature comforts and shared a tent with Ace and John. in fact he spent his first African night on a bed, with his head resting on a pillow.
His first encounter with hippos and crocodiles, produced no aggression in Christian just mild interest. John and Ace were appearing relaxed, but the reality was that they had a” London lion” in Africa! His background put Christian at great risk in the wilds. Other challenges were meeting George’s man made pride of lions and eventually wild lions, who were not too pleased for another male to enter their territory.
George saw that Christians natural instincts were intact, but he was extremely inexperienced in this environment. His first year in Kenya, was anything but easy. There was a lot to learn.
Derek Cattani documented on film Christian's time in Africa with George Adamson and made documentaries produced by Bill Travers that helped to fund the costs of sending Christian to Kenya, they also aided George in maintaining his camp at Kora to continue to rehabilitate other lions. “Christian the Lion” documentary is still available from the Born Free Foundation.
A year after leaving Christian at Kora, in 1971, Ace and John returned to visit him, against a lot of advice that it would be a wasted trip. They filmed this momentous trip of a rapturous reunion between two men and a now wild lion.
Benxi Water Caves
They were very unsure of what their reception would be when they encountered Christian again, and of course it could be very dangerous. After an anxious time, Ace and John walked into what had then become Christians territory. George appeared on the top of the hill, about 100 m away, with Christian right behind him.
Christian stopped and took a long hard stare at the two men, taking his time he slowly ambled down the hill towards the men. The men, no longer able bear the anticipation and tension, eventually called out his name; Christian came bounding towards them and jumped into their arms, showing a heartfelt recognition and a joyous reunion. He had not only recognised them, but was excited to see the men again. An incredible reunion.
In June 1972, Ace and John embarked on another journey to Kenya, hoping to see Christian, now 3 years old, again. George had warned them that Christian might not even come to camp, but after three days of waiting, Christian made his way back to the camp.
This time he was very different from the time before. He was much, much bigger and had matured. He was far more dignified and no longer boisterous in his greeting, but had not lost any of his charisma.
He would sit with the men for a short while, then just get up and move away, showing that the men were superfluous to his life now. Christian was no longer a pet, but a full grown lion. However, on the last night of Ace and John's visit, the men sat up all night laughing and joking with Christian playing the fool, just as he used to as the “London Lion”.
Come the morning though Christian left to rejoin the other lions. They never saw him again. It was a success, he was no longer dependant on the two men, he had become an African lion.
Christian stayed with George at Kora, but was continually getting into scrapes with the resident lions there. He started to stay away from the camp for longer periods, and was last seen in 1973, heading towards Meru National Park.
As he had managed to survive this late introduction to Africa and had managed to grow into a full sized lion, Ace and John presume that he managed to find his own pride and live a full life as an African lion, for at least the next 7 or 8 years. They hope that some of Christian's progeny still live on today in Kenya.
http://www.kenyasafari.com/christian-the-lion.html
Those two guys with the lion — the ones in the YouTube video with the Whitney Houston soundtrack — are back. Now, they are showing another film clip, unseen for years, of their second and final reunion in Africa with their pet and friend, Christian.
Ace Bourke and John Rendall talked about that final reunion with TODAY’s Meredith Vieira Wednesday in New York. It shows the same two shaggy Aussies seen in the clip that was viewed by some 45 million people on YouTube last year. But Christian the lion is twice the size he was in that film, an enormous and regal king of the Kenyan jungle.
In the first video, Christian leaps on them in joy. In the second, he’s nearly 500 pounds and totally in charge. Although he tried to climb on their laps, film from the encounter shows him lying placidly on the ground while his friends hunker down with him to exchange kisses and licks.
http://vietrealm.com/index.php?topic=36486.0
...
...
Thanks to the attention generated by the YouTube film, Bourke and Rendall have updated and republished the book they wrote about their experience in 1971, “A Lion Called Christian.”
They’ve also written a children’s version of the book called “Christian the Lion.” And, they told Vieira, they’ve reintroduced to the public George Adamson, the man who rehabilitated Christian and worked tirelessly to preserve endangered wildlife and habitat in Kenya.
“The beauty of YouTube is that it’s introduced another generation to Adamson and his work,” Bourke told Vieira after watching his younger self with the lion who once roamed the streets of swinging London of 1969 and 1970.
Some have suggested that the YouTube film, which shows Christian hugging and licking his two human friends like an eager puppy, must have been staged. The lion had not seen them for a year while he was being rehabilitated into the wild.
“That’s his genuine reaction, you can see the excitement,” Rendall told Vieira, who admitted that she is one of millions who can’t watch the video without getting misty-eyed. The video has been so popular because it strikes deep emotional chords, Rendall added.
“There are so many issues that have arisen out of it,” he said. “One, I think, is that people can appreciate the love that an animal can have for human beings.
It’s completely honest. You couldn’t fake that,” Rendall said. They had raised Christian from when he was a few months old after buying him in Harrods, the London department store that bragged that it could get anything for anyone.
He had hung out with them in a furniture store on King’s Road, the hippest street in swinging London, romped with them in the big garden behind a local church, toured the town in the back of their convertible, and even eaten with them in restaurants.
“It wasn’t as extraordinary to have a lion in London at that time,” Rendall told Vieira. “There were so many extraordinary things going on. Swinging London. There was music. We would see the Stones and the Beatles driving up and down King’s Road.”
In that milieu, he said, they were “just a couple Aussies with a lion.” Read more about Christian’s upbringing in London in this book excerpt. Bourke and Rendall had known each other in their native Australia.
After graduating university, they made their separate ways to London, as many Aussies did and still do before settling down into a career. They met by chance in London and moved in together, getting work and lodging over a trendy custom-made furniture store named, appropriately enough, “Sophistocat.”
They don’t recommend that anyone else do it, and hasten to say that the very idea is preposterous and dangerous. But they did it and they succeeded and their story continues to move people and focus attention on vanishing wildlife and habitat even today.
Bourke and Rendall had no training in how to raise a lion, but seemed to have an intuitive knowledge that you don’t own a lion as you would a dog and you’re not its master; you’re its friend. They never showed fear around Christian and never tried to impose their will on him. Instead of his owners, they were his pride.
There was just one time when they were frightened by Christian, and also one time when he was scared by anything in London. Their moment came when Christian got hold of a fur belt that had fallen off a coat and settled down to chew it to oblivion.
They tried to rescue the belt, but Christian flattened his ears back and growled, not like their pal but like a wild animal they didn’t recognize. Rendall and Bourke felt like fleeing the room, but instead they retreated a few steps and talked calmly to each other, as if nothing were wrong.
They remain convinced that if they had shown Christian the fear they felt, the relationship would have been over and Christian would have become dangerous.
But Christian also had his moment of terror, they said in their book. As Rendall tells it, they took Christian with them on a visit to some friends. A woman who lived with their friends was taking a bath, and Christian wandered into the bathroom to get a drink. The bloodcurdling scream that greeted him sent the king of the jungle running away in terror.
Giving up their pet - Adamson had rehabilitated Elsa, the lion who became famous through the “Born Free” book and movie. Bourke and Rendall were introduced to Adamson through a chance meeting with the actor and actress who had starred in the film.
When Christian was a year old and too big to live in the furniture shop, Adamson agreed to attempt to introduce the lion to a native habitat neither he nor his zoo-bred parents had ever known.
When Bourke and Rendall went to Kenya a year after Christian was returned to the wild, even Adamson hadn’t believed that Christian would be so enthusiastic to see his former owners. But Rendall and Bourke said they never had any doubts. They bought Christian in 1969 and took him to Africa the following year. The YouTube reunion was in 1971.
The following year, they went back to see him one more time. Adamson, who would be killed by robbers in 1989, had told them he was seeing Christian infrequently and wasn’t sure he would be around. But Bourke and Rendall went to Adamson’s camp and waited. On the third day, during dinner, Christian ambled into the camp to say hello.
“He totally interrupted dinner. Tried to sit on our laps. Knocked George over. Jumped on the table,” Rendall told Vieira. “That wasn’t filmed.” During that visit, Bourke added, “We were very respectful and he dictated the relationship totally.” Damson saw Christian a few more times over the next several months, but finally lost all contact. The wildlife expert believed that Christian moved north to happier hunting grounds and lived out his natural life. Some have speculated that poachers may have killed Christian, but Bourke and Rendall are convinced that if someone had shot the lion, word would have gotten around. Christian, they said, was, at 500 pounds, probably the biggest lion in Kenya, and that kind of kill would not have remained a secret.
The experience moved Rendall, who lives in London and Australia, to devote his life to conservation, and he is a trustee of the Adamson Trust. Bourke, who became a dealer in Aboriginal art in his native Australia, is also a supporter of the cause of preserving wildlife. Both hope that the millions of people who have been so moved by the clip contribute to the cause.
https://www.today.com/news/christian-lions-owners-recall-final-farewell-2D80555098
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.