Greetings:
This is a continuing blog and will
be re-posted (with previous bloopers) from time to time, just with a new dateline. It is,
mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction
observed on TV programs. If you see (and document) another one please
let me know.
2013 08 14 1830 NBC National News: Lester
Holt, "We're back in a moment with a question that every parent can
relate to." Better might have been, "We will be back in a moment with a
question to which every parent can relate." or, better, "We will be
back in a moment with a question that every parent has heard before." The first version definitely was wrong.
2013
08 11 1422: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Jim Nantz said,
"Today's championship winners; where do you think they're coming from?"
Better construction would have been, "Where do you think we are going
to get today's championship winners?" Or something along those lines.
After all, Nantz is neither English nor Irish so ending a sentence with
an uplifting "from" just does not sound quite right, does it?
2013
08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said,
"Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there." More
correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball
would have gotten there."
2013
08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said,
"Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled
with." Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or
three foot putts that with which he's struggled."
2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT
coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working
for your whole life." Actually would be better as, "This is for what
you have been working your whole life." Really awkward so a good writer
would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!"
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Points to Ponder 130811
Shalom:
This is another of those continuing blogs wherein we will consider various points of scripture from time to time whose title will vary only on date. The main point will be to give us some things to think about that, possibly, we might not have considered before. Hopefully we will come back and re-publish should we get enough comments and have to re-write the blog. Anyway, today's blog concerns "The New Jerusalem" as described in both TaNaKh (what Christians call 'The Old Testament' - it isn't old at all) and the New Testament. Let us begin with some scripture references to this and then move on to a discussion:
This is another of those continuing blogs wherein we will consider various points of scripture from time to time whose title will vary only on date. The main point will be to give us some things to think about that, possibly, we might not have considered before. Hopefully we will come back and re-publish should we get enough comments and have to re-write the blog. Anyway, today's blog concerns "The New Jerusalem" as described in both TaNaKh (what Christians call 'The Old Testament' - it isn't old at all) and the New Testament. Let us begin with some scripture references to this and then move on to a discussion:
Zechariah 2:5-9 I looked up, and I saw a man
holding a measuring line. 6”Where are you going?” I asked. “To measure Jerusalem,’ he replied, “to
see how long and wide it is to be.” 7But the angel who talked with
me came forward, and another angel came forward to meet him. 8The former said to him,
“Run to that young man and tell him: “Jerusalem shall be peopled as a city
without walls, so many shall be the men and cattle it contains. 9And I Myself – declares
HaShem – will be a wall of fire all around it, and I will be a glory inside
it.”
Revelation
22:10-21 the New Jerusalem is square, each wall is 12,000 furlongs (about 1,500
miles), 144 cubits thick (about 65 meters) and with 12 gates, three on each
side with the names of the 12 apostles on the 12 gates, each gate made from a
single pearl, with streets of pure gold.
The rest of Chapters 22 and 23 finish with the description of the New
Jerusalem and its inhabitants.
There are a couple of Wikipedia passages on the subject, neither of which were obviously written by Jewish authors but are, nevertheless, fairly informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology#New_Jerusalem both are fairly well written and, if printed out, might take a few pages. On the other hand, both also have quite a few links should you have any questions. What I have found interesting is that TaNaKh teaches that the New Jerusalem will not have walls while most (all?) other sources seem to say that it will have walls of varying lengths and depths. Being a Jew I follow TaNaKh and I have to wonder why the New Testament would change Zechariah's prophecy and say that there would be a walled city.
Joseph Smith (Mormonism) goes even further and declares that only 144,000 Mormons would be in that city, not the original 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel as stated in The Revelation to John in The New Testament. This has proven to be a bit of a problem since there are now way more than 144,000 Mormons in the world and all of them want in the New Jerusalem. So they have had to come up with an explanation that says something like the founders and the most holy Mormons would be there and that "some" of the newbies would be there if they give enough money and live a righteous life and all of that. After all, there has to be some kind of bait to get new fish on the hook.
OK, enough smarm and back to the topic. Why did John the Apostle change the original prophecy in the first place? Truth? I have no idea and can only guess and that would not even be and educated guess. But, on the surface, it would be that almost everyone else did the same thing; a city with walls was the accepted thought process. If you have any ideas, let me know.
Shalom,
Yaakov
Saturday, August 10, 2013
TV Grammer Bloopers 130810
Greetings:
This will be a continuing blog and will be re-posted from time to time, just with a new dateline. It will be, mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction observed on TV programs. If you see (and document) another one please let me know.
2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working for your whole life." Actually would be better as, "This is for what you have been working your whole life." Really awkward so a good writer would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!"
2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled with." Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that with which he's struggled."
2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there." More correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have gotten there."
This will be a continuing blog and will be re-posted from time to time, just with a new dateline. It will be, mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction observed on TV programs. If you see (and document) another one please let me know.
2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working for your whole life." Actually would be better as, "This is for what you have been working your whole life." Really awkward so a good writer would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!"
2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled with." Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that with which he's struggled."
2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there." More correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have gotten there."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)