Does the Bible teach a Christian Must abstain from all alcohol?

[JonC]

Okay, Mark Ward. Now it's a sin to read the KJV. Give me a break.

If this is how you are going to argue, I want no part in it. "You're sinning!" "No, you're sinning!" "Nuh uh, it's YOU who are sinning!"

How foolish.

There's nothing in Scripture, no matter how much you try and twist it, that supports drinking alcohol. It is always placed in a bad light, and even considered sinful to LOOK at. Merely looking at alcohol is sinful. A lot of Christians don't get this, which is why they watch sports with alcohol everywhere, they watch movies and TV shows with alcohol in them — this is a great evil.

How foolish of you. I never said it was a sin to read the KJzv

The problem is you do not grasp the language of the KJV snd that is making you change Scripture. If you ate going to use the KJV then you need to do the work to read the KJV
You need to study to understand what the words used in the KJV means. You are not doing that. You are mot actually reading the KJV (you read the words but change the meanings).

The problem is you want to read the Bible as if it were a comic book, never lifting a finger to study or take it seriously.

You misinterpret "skins" in Scripture ("bottles" in the KJV) to mean that the 1st century Jews used things that that did not exist at the time.

You misinterpret a passage in proverbs to mean we should not even look at red wine (you lift a verse and use it to support your own opinion...snd you add to even that misinterpretation).


Look, this is not about drinking or abstaining. I don''t drink.

It is about you forming an opinion and then going to Scripture to find support. It is about you changing Scripture, about laziness in reading and a lack of study, about you not understanding the KJV because 9f its antiquated language.


Is it a sin to read the KJV? No. The problem with the KJV is that the reader must study to know what the antiquated words means and then read it as Scripture. It causes too many - like you - to misread God's Word because they do not understand the language in which it was translated.


If the verse in proverbs means do not even look at red wine then you have to take it for what it says. Jesus woukd have seen red wine, so He sinned. What about white wine?

The verse is speaking not of looking but gazing (of excess). And if you read the entire proverb you would understand that it is about temptation leading to sin. It is not a prohibiting looking at a glass of red wine, or even consuming a glass of red wine.

As long as you are reading the Bible to support your opinions you will not have any understanding of God's Word.


Now why read a translation of the Bible that you do not understand? It only causes you to make errors.

If you understood the language in which the KJV was translated you would have known that "bottles" were made of sheep or goat skins.

If you are not going to learn the language of a translation then pick a translation that is in your language.

 

[JonC]

Sorry, but I have been all the way through the messages in this thread, and I cannot find a single post from somebody called Mark Ward.

Never heard of Mark Ward....but I know of a Ward Cleaver.

@Servant of Jehovah is just scrambling because he made a mistake he doesn't want to acknowledge (misunderstanding the 16th century use of word) snd not realizing that Proverbs are composed proverbs.

When people make mistakes they are unwilling to own up to a common action is to start comparing their opponent to somebody they view in a poor way.

We see this all the time in politics and religious discussions.

What this means is:

1. Whoever Mark Ward is @Servant of Jehovah believes tge comparison an insult.
2. @Servant of Jehovah cannot defend his belief (otherwise "Mark Ward" wouldn't have came up).

 

[JesusFan]

Never heard of Mark Ward....but I know of a Ward Cleaver.

@Servant of Jehovah is just scrambling because he made a mistake he doesn't want to acknowledge (misunderstanding the 16th century use of word) snd not realizing that Proverbs are composed proverbs.

When people make mistakes they are unwilling to own up to a common action is to start comparing their opponent to somebody they view in a poor way.

We see this all the time in politics and religious discussions.

What this means is:

1. Whoever Mark Ward is @Servant of Jehovah believes tge comparison an insult.
2. @Servant of Jehovah cannot defend his belief (otherwise "Mark Ward" wouldn't have came up).

For everyone who is curious, mark ward is a fellow Brother in the Lord, who grew up to be strong KJVO, but over time changed to allow for also Modern translations such as Nkjv/Esv/Nas are acceptable to use, and what really ticked off KJVO was his book

Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible​

In which he stated that the Kjv was and still is a good translation, but due to English having changed so much in grammar and terminology and meaning since 1611, many who read and use it are misunderstanding and reading back into it what they think it meant, but not what meant back in 1611

 

[JonC]

For everyone who is curious, mark ward is a fellow Brother in the Lord, who grew up to be strong KJVO, but over time changed to allow for also Modern translations such as Nkjv/Esv/Nas are acceptable to use, and what really ticked off KJVO was his book

Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible​

In which he stated that the Kjv was and still is a good translation, but due to English having changed so much in grammar and terminology and meaning since 1611, many who read and use it are misunderstanding and reading back into it what they think it meant, but not what meant back in 1611

Thanks for the info.

Just reading your post Mark Ward was absolutely correct. @Servant of Jehovah proved him correct in this thread.

I agree with his conclusions (that you mention).

The KJV is a wonderful translation. The problem is not with the transkation but that language has changed and the KJV is mo longer in the Engkish vernacular.

@Servant of Jehovah demonstrated this with his confusion over the KJV use of "bottles", which in the KJV vernacular would be containers made of sheep or goat skins. This made him condemn other translations which expressed the same thing, and essentualky condemn the actual KJV use of "bottles".

That seems, at first glance, to be a minor error on his part. But it changes the entire passage (what the passage is relating to the people). And, obviously, not knowing the 16th century language can easily lead to greater errors if relying on an antiquated translation.