Home

So we’re down to the final four, and both teams I cheer for are still in… and I still expect them to face each other in the final.

I haven’t made any published analysis and predictions in a long while, so here goes:

Western Conference: Detroit vs Dallas

Some say that Dallas has defeated the better teams and have the better goaltender; ergo, they are the favourites.

But Detroit learned by painful firsthand experience last year just how difficult it is to get through three successive physical, skilled teams in the Western Conference, when they fell off in the last half of the series against Anaheim after working through Calgary and San Jose. Dallas has a similar task this year: after knocking off defending champ Anaheim and then eking out a six game thriller against the Sharks, they now run into the Wings, who are fresh as a daisy after a sweep of the depleted Avalanche. Beating the better teams isn’t always an advantage. And that is especially the case, given the fact that the Stars required 3 1/2 overtimes in game six to dismiss San Jose.

It may be that Turco is a better netminder than Osgood (although his record against Detroit is pretty dismal), but it must not be forgotten that any series involving Detroit tilts the ice. Osgood doesn’t have to be as good as Turco; he just needs to be solid and make the saves at the critical times, which he has done admirably since taking over from Hasek in the first round. It says here that the Wings will outplay Dallas, and that guys like Holmstrom and Franzen (who is suddenly a rival to Malkin as the best second line center in the league) will be sufficiently in Turco’s face that he’ll give up goals.

Verdict: No surprise that I’m picking the Wings, but I’m going out on a bit of a limb and saying Detroit in five. Dallas is good at every position - but almost everything the Stars do well, the Wings do even better.

Eastern Conference: Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia

Philly had the Pens’ number during the regular season, but it’s well-established that those sorts of accomplishments mean little at playoff time (Pens also hadn’t won at MSG until the playoffs; and Montreal had a winning record against the Flyers).

The trouble that Philly faces is that Pittsburgh’s little-known defense has rapidly come of age, and there’s no disputing the incredible one-two punch at center (Crosby and Malkin; pick the order). Jordan Staal is ridiculously good as a third-line center; he’s a top-level penalty-killer, an excellent defensive forward, and to top it off, his line has the ability to provide offense, as well.

Truth be told, this young Pittsburgh team reminds me very much of the 1983 Edmonton Oilers: ridiculous one-two at center with Gretzky and Messier, solid secondary scoring, a mobile defense that was on the verge of emerging into stardom, and a young goaltender rapidly coming into his own. (You could even argue a parallel between Kurri on Gretzky’s wing with Hossa beside Crosby: two European natural goalscorers who play a two-way game.)

That young Oiler team was on the cusp of greatness and went to the finals, only losing to the skilled, experienced, three-time champion Islanders. It says here that this young Penguin team has a similar destiny. They will advance here, and go down to the semi-dynastic Wings in the final.

Verdict: Pittsburgh in 6.

This week we signed an agreement on an offer on Mom’s condo. It’s contingent upon a couple of things - the buyers have an agreement on their house, but the financing has to go through; in addition, the condo has to pass a brief inspection. We’ll know these issues by May 9 and 12, respectively.

Please pray that this will go through - it would be so nice to have this albatross gone, given condo fees, property tax, and interest on the line of credit.

Just learned something that will probably surprise most: What NHL goaltender has the most shutouts in series-clinching games?

Not who you would think.

Not Martin Brodeur.

Not Patrick Roy.

Not Ken Dryden.

The correct answer is Chris Osgood, the Detroit netminder who is the Rodney Dangerfield of the NHL (never gets any respect, no matter how good the stats).

Well, after writing no music for a very long time, I’ve put together another in the last couple of days. It recounts the testimony of the spies Moses sent into Canaan, and as the post title suggests, is called “The Witness of Ten.” Not sure when I’ll have a recording available, but here are the lyrics:

ONE:
there is a chosen band
nearing a promised land
the land has come in sight
the time has come to fight
send in spies to see
the riches of our dreams
through the eyes of a dozen men
this is the witness of ten:

CHORUS:
It’s a green green land,
it’s a good good land
It’s a land of promises
it’s a land that swallows us alive
We will not survive
It’s a land of giants
it’s a land of violence
Why’d you bring us here to die?
This is their land
this is not our land
May our souls be damned
We won’t take this land
from your hand
We’d go back to old slavemasters
Make return to past disasters
Do you understand what we confess
We won’t enter in to your rest
Let the grumbling begin
This is the witness of ten

TWO:
there are a couple men
trying to counter them
“the land is promised us
the Lord will fight for us
the Canaanites are stew
they’ll be bread for you”
but who gives heed to a couple men
against the witness of ten?

[Chorus; then continue to finale]

FINALE:
I’ve borne with this generation
How long will you test My patience?
Do you wish to die [in] this wilderness?
You won’t enter in to My rest
Let the judgment begin
All for the witness of ten
Let the judgment begin
All for the witness of ten
Let the judgment begin
All for the witness of ten

Check out this 11-year-old wonder. Lots of songs to choose from. I’m very partial to “When the Children Cry” (yes, White Lion!).

Okay, here it is. As I say, just a quickie.

Wow, it’s hard to remember the last time I wrote a new song. (Actually, I’m not sure if I’ve even picked up my guitar since I finished recording the third volume of my Anthology.)

But with Easter looming and me supposed to do a song for the program, I was thinking during supper of perhaps writing something new. And an idea based on Romans 4 entered my head. It didn’t take long for this to emerge:

Out of the Grave
Words & Music by Tim Gallant March 9/08

Abram was old and Sarah was barren
Their bodies were cold their future in question
Years they had passed but Abram held fast
Receiving by faith a life from the grave
This is what Yahweh still counts a righteous response

Out of the grave and into the garden
Died for our shames raised for our pardon
This is just God at His Word
This is the life of the world

The unlikely son is born and is “laughter”
Things that are not are spoken and happen
The God we believe His Word we receive
The promise is strong give glory to God
This is what Yahweh still counts a righteous response

Out of the grave….

The truth is that both the lyrics and the tune are relatively simple, so writing wasn’t an involved process. I’m going to try to get a rough version recorded this evening, so I can have a tune outline preserved. I need to find some AA batteries for my music computer mouse first, though….

Roger Federer has had mono since December - and didn’t know it until February. So the food poisoning prior to the Australian Open wasn’t even his biggest problem.

It’s amazing to realize that Roger got to the semifinals of a Grand Slam while fighting mono, on top of having lost weight and strength due to the food poisoning. Wow.

Anyone who watched the semi could see that Fed wasn’t moving well, although the commentators tried to say it was Djokovic’s aggression making Roger look slow. (Djokovic himself got beaten by low-ranked Gilles Simon in his next event when fighting a slight flu.)

Fed had a tough comeback, forced to play Andy Murray in the first round without being in match shape. Hard loss to take, but now that he’s better, I’m sure he’ll be back to form soon.

Congratulations to my friends John and Moriah Barach, to whom God granted a son yesterday! Like the two generations of men before him, his name is John Vance, but he will be called by his middle name.

Turnips cooked in brown sugar taste an awful lot like sweet potatoes.

Okay, carry on….

The official presentation of my first print project.

I’ll be using the pactumstudio.com site as the home for my print portfolio as I develop it.

…you can view a real live Firefox bug: http://timgallant.org/gdesign/gpconcrete/

If you check out that link with Internet Explorer (yes, even IE6), Safari, Opera, you will see four images on that page - a poster image just under the heading, two mid-size brochure images down the left, and a small business card image in the lower right.

But if you look in Firefox, chances are you won’t see the poster image at all; in fact, Firefox goes further: sometimes hiding the descriptive text I’ve used in place of captions to identify the various images, and on occasion, it won’t even reserve the proper space for the poster image, thus messing up the layout and bringing the business card image to the top of the page.

I’ve encountered the Firefox disappearing content bug before, but Internet Explorer is the one that usually has the reputation for it. Unfortunately, while it probably occurs more frequently in IE, it’s more difficult to resolve in Firefox without reconstructing the layout altogether.

Which I will do, of course - if you’ve paid attention to the actual content of the linked page, you’ll see it’s a presentation of my first graphic design print project, which I worked on for my employer (for my full time job). As I get more experience working with Illustrator and InDesign, I’ll be advertising that I’ve expanded from web work into print, as well. Should be fun.

If you’re viewing this in Internet Explorer 6 or earlier, you’ll have discovered that I have got the infamous peekaboo bug going on here (whether or not you’re aware of its name). Symptoms: the headings are coming in and out of visibility (mostly out). The usual fixes haven’t worked so far, unfortunately, but I’m still tinkering.

Web developers everywhere will breathe a sigh of relief when IE6 is put to rest.

You’ve heard of the three pixel jog? That’s horizontal. But there’s also a bug in IE that causes a 3 pixel vertical jog, and the usual hacks don’t work.

Like the more familiar bug, this is 3 px and float-related, as well.

I’ve encountered this bug more than once in the following scenario:

1. Inline unordered list of text hyperlinks.

2. Hyperlinks floated.

3. Any text link of multiple words will display 3 px lower than it is supposed to.

Actually, I almost think my description in (3) is backward, since IE7 displays single words roughly 3px higher than other browsers - thus the “jog” may actually be reverse: except where there are multiple words in the text link, IE displays 3 pixels above where it is supposed to.

Note that assigning a height does not work in this case. (Nor does zoom.) The only workaround I’ve discovered so far is to create a class for IE to render the item with 3px less top padding than its mates.

I queried the famous bug-quasher Big John Gallant (no relation) about this, and even he had not been previously familiar with the bug.

If you’ve encountered this IE behaviour and are aware of a fix, post away.

I’m noticing odd appear/disappear behaviour with my headings in my version of IE6 - but it’s a multiple-instance version, so I’m not sure how much to rely on it. How are y’all seeing it? Are you seeing headings come in and out if you scroll up and down?

How to upgrade to Windows Vista

Heehee.

It has been well-noted that the return of the ark from Philistia replete with gifts is an exodus story. And of course, there are numerous parallels between the Philistines and the Egyptians (actually, the Philistines were descendants of Mizraim = Egypt). Just as God sent plagues upon Egypt, He sent plagues upon Philistia and showed His judgment over its gods. As with Israel emerging from Egypt with all sorts of valued goods of the Egyptians, the Philistines sent the ark back to Israel with valuable gifts.

All of that, therefore, is a given and important. However, it must be recognized that 1 Samuel treats the departure of the ark from Israel to Philistia in the first place under an exodus motif, as well.

In a recent Bible study discussion, we noted that at key points in redemptive history (i.e. at the introduction of a new covenant), God sent “multi-office” figures who served not only in kingly/ “judgely” roles, but also in priestly and prophetic ones: Abraham, Moses, Samuel.

But there are further (disturbing) parallels between Moses and Samuel. Like Moses, Samuel was given up by his mother to live in the house of the leader of the land. Yes, that’s exactly what I am implying: Eli serves in parallel to Pharaoh. Now, of course, Eli in some respects fears God - he at least rebukes his sons. However, when push comes to shove, like Pharaoh, Eli does not fear God. That in fact is what the man of God suggests to Eli: Eli does not honour God, but despises Him (1 Sam 2.30). It seems clear that though Eli rebuked his sons, he was willing to become heavy (”glorious”) from the food they had stolen from Yahweh’s offerings. Thus, just as Pharaoh refused to allow Israel to worship Yahweh in the way He had commanded, Eli, through his sons, disallow Israel from worshipping rightly, as well, by stealing the Lord’s portion (1 Sam 2.13-17).

What all this means is that the departure of the ark from the possession of Eli’s house is an act of exodus. Yahweh’s presence - the place of the cloud of glory which accompanied Israel at the Egyptian exodus - goes up from the presence of this new Pharaoh, and as it turns out, the Philistines treat Yahweh’s ark with more reverence and good sense than Eli’s own house had done. (They at least sent the ark back with a guilt offering.)

[Note: This material is also posted on the Biblical Horizons blog.]

In our previous post, we examined the sundry texts from which Paul quotes in his great catena of quotations in Rom 3.10-18. But the thought unit is not yet complete; Paul makes his assessment of the implications in 3.19-20. This followup makes Paul’s intent clearer, although it is frequently misread (verse 19, in particular; I think this is likely also the case with verse 20, but my understanding of the verse is still being formed).

Read the rest of this entry »

Here is a very nice summary of Romans, by David Field. Concise and accurate.

[Note: this post also appears at the Biblical Horizons blog.]

In our earlier look at Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans 3, we focused upon how Psalm 51, from which the apostle quotes in verse 4, determines and shapes our reading of 3.1-8. We also noted that the psalm contains a reference to divine righteousness (Ps 51.14), where it refers to God’s salvific activity. In this post, we move on to the next subsection, and begin our consideration of Romans 3.9-20. What are these passages from which Paul quotes? What do they contribute to our understanding of Paul’s train of thought?

Read the rest of this entry »

[Note: This post also appears at the Biblical Horizons blog.]

It has always been important to pay attention to the Old Testament quotations we find in the New Testament, but in recent years, it has become even more clear that one must take into account the extended context of the passage cited, not simply the words directly quoted. This is understandable: unlike our situation, the ancient world largely communicated texts as an oral culture, and nobody footnoted.

But it is understandable on an even more important level: the New Testament writers are not manufacturing a de novo religion; they are drawing upon an inspired and authoritative text that has come to new light with the advent of Christ and the Spirit. (Indeed, this is what Paul says almost directly in 2 Corinthians 3.) And if this is the case, we can be sure that - no matter what our untrained eyes may lead us to believe at first glance - the writers of the New Testament were contextual and faithful to the Scriptures from which they drew. Our failure to recognize this stems, not from our superior training in hermeneutics, but from the poverty and weakness of our biblical understanding.

In the case of Romans 3, we have one of the heaviest concentrations of biblical citations to be found within the Pauline corpus. This means that proceeding to define terms and phrases must not be done in a vacuum; we must investigate the passages Paul cites.

Read the rest of this entry »

Well, it’s been a long time coming, and with schedules in the publishing world, it could be well over another year yet, but….

Canon Press informed me today that they would like to publish my little book. The full title is These Are Two Covenants: Reconsidering Paul on the Mosaic Law. It was originally intended as a chapter (an admittedly long one) in an Athanasius Press book which ultimately did not get published. I prepared it in 2004, although I did some minor touchups last year when I decided I needed to release it as a standalone book. Thus most of the work done on this is a few years old, and it’s relatively short (probably somewhere around 100 pages), but those who helped me vet the manuscript seemed to indicate that they found it a very helpful treatment of Paul’s view of the law. So although some time in the far distant future, I’d like to do a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, I’m very much looking forward to seeing this essay finally come to print.

I am conversing with someone who asked me where infant baptism can be found in Scripture. Here is what I wrote in response.

Thank you for your question. I am glad to see that you are concerned to
follow the Bible in this way. I hope you don’t mind if I take a few
paragraphs to talk about this.

Paul mentions baptism which includes infants in 1 Corinthians 10.2. Of
course, he is referring to an Old Testament event, but as he continues, we
find that he says that the Red Sea and wilderness partaking of water from
the rock and manna were of the same pattern as baptism and the Lord’s
Supper. To be more precise: he uses the language of “tupos” in verses 6 and
11, which is more than “example;” it refers to a pattern or matrix. And this
pattern of Israel was set for “us” (new covenant believers, including
Gentiles), who partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10.16-22).

Read the rest of this entry »

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog July 13 2007]

In support of the notion that each church (or perhaps city?) is to be led by one single pastor or bishop, rather than by a plurality of elders, some of whom may preach, the angels of the seven churches in Revelation are often put forward. Each church/city was represented by one “angel” who was addressed, rather than a leadership group. Since “angel” (Greek aggelos) means “messenger,” it is suggested that these are the pastors or bishops of the churches.

Quite aside from the fact that I don’t think that aggelos in Scripture usually refers to human beings, I’ve long maintained that if “angels” in Revelation 2-3 refer to pastors/bishops, the same must be the case throughout the book, and I don’t believe that will hold.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog June 16 2007]

I recall that when I first started writing sermons, I was given to lengthiness. I suppose I saw those sermons as short - my Dad used to preach anywhere from an hour (on the very short end) to 3-4 hours (!).

When I was pastoring in Montana, I was in a local church context where the people really weren’t accustomed to long sermons, and I suppose I was kind of already going in the direction of shorter ones, anyway. I suspect my average sermon clocked in somewhere around 22-25 minutes by the time I left.

I find I’m going back up a bit. I hope that doesn’t mean that I’m just becoming more wordy and difficult; the truth is that while I still retain a very high view of preaching, I now recognize that it does not carry the full weight of the liturgy. God speaks to His people throughout the service, and not just in the sermon.

Anyway, I’ve just completed my sermon draft for tomorrow. It’s up in the 3300 word range; most of my Montana sermon drafts were around 2300-2600. But I don’t feel bad…. I guess I feel safe, since I think my sermons are usually shorter than my fellow preachers in the rotation. :p

But the real issue is doing justice to the text. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised by Galatians 3.6-9, since this is a chapter I’ve devoted extensive study to. I honestly didn’t really think it would be easy to come up with enough material for a sermon, but once again, I’ve not only come up with a rather long sermon, I haven’t managed to even go over every phrase directly.

So what’s so special about this passage?

At first, it looks fairly straightforward: Paul is telling the Galatians that justification is by faith; Abraham was justified by faith, as borne witness by Gen 15.6.

But a closer look uncovers rather a lot more. For starters, consider a couple of questions:

1. The immediate link in the text is between the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit and the counting of Abraham as righteous through faith. (This has led some people to pretty much equate the gift of the Spirit with justification.) What’s the nature of the link?

2. Genesis 15.6 occurs, not at the outset of Abraham’s walk with Yahweh, but several years in. But wait: Isn’t justification something that happens once, at the beginning?

Read the rest of this entry »

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog May 26 2007]

I don’t have time at the moment to deal with this document of my alma mater at length. But for now, I’d like to offer a handful of very brief points….

1. Douglas Wilson has engaged the Mid-America faculty on the issue of the ninth commandment, and how the Testimony violates it. This doesn’t seem all that clear to the MARS folk, which I find a bit mystifying. If one identifies a group or groups, and then proceeds to identify a series of errors, surely it is natural to assume that all the errors in view are indeed held by real people, and indeed by the preponderance of the best-known representatives of said groups. Yet the document in question names things that I’m not aware of ANYONE holding, much less anyone among the so-called FV (”big guns” or not). And that is the underlying issue with the failure to name names. Yes, you can omit specifics if everything you say is clear and universal - but that is far from the case. And the result is, of necessity, the defaming of real men with real ministries. How is that not a violation of the ninth commandment?

Read the rest of this entry »