Bass (the Drum, not the Fish)

I've finally had it with my bass drum. After 24 years of playing drums, I've recently become so disgusted with my bass playing that I've dropped $39.95 to but an instructional video by Matt Ritter.

So far, things are going okay with this, but I'm still not up to snuff, whatever that means. My leg has been killing me, and my control is just so-so. I'm hoping that as I continue to practice things will get better.

To me, bass drum playing is a lot like good grammar: you can still communicate without it. To wit: You ain't got no need for well grammar to communicate more better then anyone else. You got the gist of that, yes? So also with the bass drum: As long as your timing is okay, you can play serviceable drums for ages without any real issues. Such is my life.

Still, it's a crying shame, and as I search the web, it seems that hordes of other drummers share in my woe. Hence, my post, to commiserate with you all. Anybody out there among my scores of readers have any good tips or encouragements? Heel-toe, heel-ball, heel-down, heel-up, toe-ball...all worthy for different playing situations, yes, but then there's superstars like my hero Vinnie Colaiuta who seem to have no issue going with plain 'ol heel-up. Sigh. Oh, Vinnie...when God handed out chops, why'd you have to go and hog them all? Sigh.

Unfalsifiable Prayer

As of late, Bmarchio's household has fallen ill...and not "ill" in the cool Beastie Boys sense, but "ill" in the physiological sense. In short, we're ill, but not illin'.

My wife and I have been praying through this, as it's been a marked drain on us both. She has been coughing and sniffing for close to a week now, and I've just moved from one cold to another. This season of momentary and light afflictions has brought to my mind a few thoughts that I shall declare blog-worthy:

(1) Praise God for His mercy! Sometimes it takes a toothache to truly appreciate how merciful God is in that we spend the majority of our lives without a toothache. As illness is clearly the exception for me and my wife, I must praise God for His mercy and grace that we've spend most of our lives as healthy individuals.
(2) Empathy 101. What better way to have a heart for the sick than to be one of them yourself? Granted, a cold hardly ranks among the panoply of chronic illnesses so many struggle with day-to-day, but just a taste of that helps me empathize with such persons.
(3) Prayer. Here comes the more challenging thought: My wife and I have of course been praying through these illnesses, as we both believe that, to quote the t-shirt, prayer changes things. The wonderful Wayne Grudem made a comment (though I doubt it's genesis is with him) that if we truly understood the power of prayer, we'd pray lots more. Amen. Still, I was thinking about the efficacy of prayer, and was drawing a blank as to the criticism that it is an "unfalsifiable hypothesis:" I pray for healing for my wife's cough. If she (a) gets better right away, then praise God, my prayers are answered. If she (b) doesn't get better right away, then praise God, it must somehow serve His purposes for her to remain ill for a while. It seems that no matter the outcome, prayer still works. We just back-fill in an explanation.

To me, it is redolent of the documentary hypothesis (I promise this is the last time I'll talk about that): The critic looks at the text, then back-fills in the categories. If something bleeds over and doesn't fit any category, the critic just invents a "later redactor" and we're done! It's unfalsifiable.

Are we guilty of the same process with regards to prayer? No matter the outcome, we find a suitable explanation. How do we answer to this? Are we back to presuppositions? Or should we simply refrain (or at least, drastically cut back) from trying to explain God's work in our lives when, truth be told, we often do not fully (or correctly) understand the extent of it. Should I have just paid more attention in systematic II? Will Giligan ever get off the island? Who shot J.R.? Please advise.

ANE Mythology

Most folks who have studied the Old Testament have come across the documentary hypothesis (JEDP), its various permutations, claims, and other things dead German people wrote about the Pentateuch decades and decades ago.

One of the keys to debunking the hypothesis (which is pure bunk, wholly worthy of debunking), and assigning earlier (traditional) dates to the Pentateuch, is to note ancient near-eastern parallels (ANE) to Biblical literature (of which the dead Germans were not aware).

For instance, JEDP supporters often point to the occurence of "doublets" in the Bible: two creation accounts (Gen. 1 & 2), two accounts of Abraham and his wife (Gen. 12 & 20), etc. A repetition of the same story, they reason, must evidence two different sources (authors) of the story, which were put together some time later; an ancient "cut and paste" if you will. Discoveries of ANE literature , however, such as the Ugaritic story of Keret (pre-1200 B.C.), show that ANE cultures had a preference for repetition. Understanding that repetition was a cultural norm for the ANE (n.b., not us) helps explain why certain episodes are repeated in the Bible.

We might also consider the account of Noah and the flood (Gen. 6-9). Several documents (Epic of Atrahasis: ca. 1600 B.C., The Gilgamesh Story: ca. late 2nd millenium B.C.) reveal 17 formal parallels between Noah's flood account and these other parallels. This again supports an early date for Genesis 6-9, as it follows what was the norm for flood accounts at the time.

While this is wonderful for matter of dating and authorship in the OT, it has often troubled me because it seems that with different presuppositions, the ANE parallels do naught more than confirm for non-believers that the Bible is just another ANE mythology among many: The Babylonians have a flood story, the Israelites have a flood story. It's common mythology of the period, not divinely inspired truth.

I'd be interested to hear what my multitudes of readers have to say about this. I have a few thoughts of my own, but they all ultimately rest upon presuppositions. For example, given the Bible is true, other flood accounts are (a) misinterpretations of God's revelation, or (b) demonic perversions of God's revelation to another culture. Is there another way to respond? Anyone?

Back...

Right. I'm back. Back in black, as it were. I hit the sack. I've been too long, I'm glad to be back. I'm cut loose, from the noose...

Anyway, my absence is due to naught more than wanting to make sure that Danny's victory over me was decisive. No photo finish there. Spite isn't that powerful after all, I guess. I'm glad we're all a little wiser now.